Understanding the Nature of Canada’s Fiscal and Economic Challenges

” between 2016 and 2019 (pre-COVID), growth in per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) was an anemic 0.9 percent. According to one study, among the last five pre-recession periods in Canadian history, the Trudeau period (again, 2016 to 2019) recorded the weakest economic growth “

The Trudeau government was first elected in 2015 based in part on a new approach to government policy, which promised greater prosperity for Canadians based on short-term deficit spending (totaling $25.1 billion over three years), lower taxes for most Canadians (except higher-income earners), and a more active approach to economic development (LPC, 2015). This new policy direction stood in stark contrast to the consensus of the previous 20 years (Clemens and Palacios, 2017). The result has been a marked deterioration in the country’s finances, economic stagnation, and a collapse in business investment. If Canada is to restore its fiscal and economic health, Ottawa must enact fundamental policy reform.

Government spending, taxes, and debt

The Trudeau government has markedly increased spending to finance both new programs and increases in existing programs. Federal spending (excluding interest costs) increased from $256.3 billion in 2014-15 (the year before the Trudeau government took office) to $448.2 billion in 2022-23 (an increase of 74.9 percent) (Canada, 2023a) and a projected $453.0 billion in 2023-24 (Canada, 2023b). Not surprisingly, COVID-related spending contributed to increases in 2019-20 to 2021-22. But in 2022-23 and thereafter, there is no COVID-related spending.

The federal government has used tax increases and large increases in borrowing to finance these spending increases. In 2016, the federal government increased the top personal income tax rate imposed on entrepreneurs, professionals , and business owners from 29 percent to 33 percent. Consequently, the combined top personal income tax rate (federal and provincial) now exceeds 50 percent in eight provinces (with the remaining provinces only slightly below 50 percent) and in 2022 Canada had the 5th highest tax rate out of 38 OECD countries. This represents a serious competitive challenge for Canada’s ability to attract and retain entrepreneurs, investors, skilled professionals, and businesses.

And while the Trudeau government reduced the middle personal income tax rate, it also eliminated several tax credits. The combination of the two policy changes means that 86 percent of middle-income families now pay higher personal income taxes (Palacios et al., 2022). If the analysis also includes increases to the Canada Pension Plan contribution rate, almost all Canadians now pay higher taxes.

The Trudeau government also borrowed to finance its new spending. Figure 1 contrasts the originally
planned deficits with the actual deficits incurred by the Trudeau government (excluding COVID-related
spending) from 2016-17 to 2022-23. The actual borrowing exceeds the originally planned borrowing
every year (except 2021-22), often by significant margins, due to the government’s inability to control
spending growth.

The string of deficits means federal debt (measured as gross debt) has ballooned to $1.9 trillion
(2022-23) and is projected to reach $2.4 trillion by 2027/28, fueling a dramatic growth in interest costs,
which have grown by 53.2 percent (inflation-adjusted) between 2014/15 and 2023/24 and will reach
a projected $46.5 billion in 2023/24. Interest costs now consume substantial revenue that is then unavailable for government services or tax reduction.

Simply put, Trudeau government policy changes have produced large increases in government spending, taxes, and borrowing. Unfortunately, these policy changes have not resulted in a more robust and vibrant economy.

Weak economic growth and collapsing business investment

The broadest measure of living standards is GDP per person, which calculates the total value of all goods and services produced in the economy in a given year (adjusted by the population). As illustrated in Figure 2, between 2016 and 2019 (pre-COVID), growth in per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) was an anemic 0.9 percent. According to one study, among the last five pre-recession periods in Canadian history, the Trudeau period (again, 2016 to 2019) recorded the weakest economic growth (Clemens, Palacios, and Veldhuis, 2021). Another study found that Canada’s per-person GDP growth from 2013 to 2022 was the weakest on record since the 1930s (Cross, 2023). And per-person GDP in 2022 (inflation-adjusted) had still not recovered from the pandemic losses and was basically stagnant at 2018 levels (see figure 2).

Prospects for the future, given current policies, are not encouraging. The OECD projects that Canada will record the lowest rate of per-person GDP growth among 32 advanced economies from 2020 to 2030 and from 2030 to 2060(OECD, 2021).Countries such as Estonia, South Korea, and New Zealand are expected to vault past Canada and achieve higher living standards by 2060.

According to a recent analysis, Canada’s economic growth crisis is due in part to the decline in business investment, which is critical to increasing living standards because it equips workers with tools and technologies to produce more higher-quality goods and services. This, in turn, fuels innovation and improved productivity (Cross, 2023). There are obvious explanations for the decline in business investment including regulatory barriers, particularly related to the energy and mining sectors (Globerman and Emes, 2021), and government deficits, which imply tax increases in the future, dampening investment today. Business investment (inflation-adjusted), excluding residential construction, has declined by 1.8 percent annually since 2014.

According to a 2023 study (Hill and Emes, 2023), between 2014 and 2021, business investment per worker (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) decreased by $3,676 (to $14,687) compared to growth of $3,418 (to $26,751) in the United States. Put differently, in 2014, Canadian
businesses invested 79 cents per worker for every dollar invested in the United States. By 2021, that level of investment had declined to just 55 cents per worker.

Moreover, the amount of investment in Canada by foreigners has decreased while the amount of investment by Canadians outside of the country has increased. In 2008, the two levels were roughly comparable—$65.7 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada vs. $84.6 billion in investment by Canadians outside of the country. However, a sizeable change began in 2015; by 2022, the amount of FDI ($64.6 billion) was significantly smaller than the amount of investment by Canadians outside the country ($102.3 billion).

Finally, while Canada’s labour market has consistently demonstrated its strength and resilience, the labour market numbers hide some concerning trends. For example, between February 2020 (when the pandemic began) and June 2023, private-sector job creation (net) was fairly weak at 3.3 percent compared to 11.8 percent job growth in the government sector (Eisen, Ryan and Palacios, 2023). In other words, the recovery and growth in the private sector following the pandemic has not been as strong as expected.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

There is reason for optimism, however, since many of Canada’s challenges are of the federal government’s own making. The Chrétien Liberals in the 1990s faced many of the same challenges that we do today (Veldhuis, Clemens, and Palacios, 2011). By shifting the focus to more prudent government spending, balanced budgets, debt reduction, and competitive tax rates, the Chrétien Liberals—followed in large measure by the Harper Tories—paved the way for two decades of prosperity when Canada outperformed other OECD countries on economic growth, job-creation, and business investment.

To help foster greater prosperity for Canadians today, the federal government can learn from the Chrétien Liberals, and the Harper Tories. The rest of this series identifies policy options that can increase living standards for Canadians by repairing federal finances, improving tax competitiveness, and lowering economic barriers. These reforms could help build a more prosperous country through the creation of good jobs which would lead to rising incomes for Canadians.

Authors:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Up Next

WHO health treaty a convenient cover for more government overreach: Bruce Pardy

Don't Miss

You are paying for our governments’ debt addiction

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

Mark Carney’s new chief of staff was caught lying about Emergencies Act use

National / 1 hour ago

Two Liberal ministers suggest Mark Carney will call election after being sworn in as PM

International / 1 hour ago

‘Democracy is now a farce’: How the EU-NATO axis abolished freedom in Romania

Banks

Bank of Canada Slashes Interest Rates as Trade War Wreaks Havoc

Published on March 13, 2025

Todayville

Dan Knght

With businesses cutting jobs, inflation rising, and consumer confidence collapsing, the BoC scrambles to contain the damage

The Bank of Canada just cut interest rates again, this time by 25 basis points, bringing the rate down to 2.75%. On the surface, that might sound like good news—lower rates usually mean cheaper borrowing, easier access to credit, and in theory, more money flowing into the economy. But let’s be clear about what’s actually happening here. The Canadian economy isn’t growing because of strong fundamentals or responsible fiscal policy. The Bank of Canada is slashing rates because the Trudeau—sorry, Carney—government has utterly mismanaged this country’s economic future. And now, with the U.S. slapping tariffs on Canadian goods and our government responding with knee-jerk retaliatory tariffs, the central bank is in full-blown damage control.

Governor Tiff Macklem didn’t mince words at his press conference. “The Canadian economy ended 2024 in good shape,” he insisted, before immediately admitting that “pervasive uncertainty created by continuously changing U.S. tariff threats have shaken business and consumer confidence.” In other words, the economy was doing fine—until reality set in. And that reality is simple: a trade war with our largest trading partner is economic suicide, yet the Canadian government has charged headlong into one.

Macklem tried to explain the Bank’s thinking. He pointed out that while inflation has remained close to the BoC’s 2% target, it’s expected to rise to 2.5% in March thanks to the expiry of a temporary GST holiday. That’s right—Canadians are about to get slammed with higher prices on top of already sky-high costs for groceries, gas, and basic necessities. But that’s not even the worst part. Macklem admitted that while inflation will go up, consumer spending and business investment are both set to drop as a result of this economic uncertainty. Businesses are pulling back on hiring. They’re delaying investment. They’re scared. And rightly so.

A BoC survey released alongside the rate decision shows that 40% of businesses plan to cut back on hiring, particularly in manufacturing, mining, and oil and gas—precisely the industries that were already hammered by Ottawa’s obsession with green energy and ESG policies. As Macklem put it, “Canadians are more worried about their job security and financial health as a result of trade tensions, and they intend to spend more cautiously.” In other words, this is self-inflicted. The government could have pursued a different approach. It could have worked with the U.S. to de-escalate trade tensions. Instead, Mark Carney—an unelected, Davos-approved globalist—is running the show, doubling down on tariffs that will raise prices for Canadians while doing absolutely nothing to change U.S. policy.

The worst part is that the Bank of Canada is completely cornered. It can’t provide forward guidance on future rate decisions because, as Macklem admitted, it has no idea what’s going to happen next. “We are focused on assessing the upward pressure on inflation from tariffs and a weaker dollar, and the downward pressure from weaker domestic demand,” he said. That’s central banker-speak for: We’re guessing, and we hope we don’t screw this up. And if inflation does spiral out of control, the BoC could be forced to raise rates instead of cutting them.

At the heart of this mess is a government that has spent years inflating the size of the state while crushing private sector growth. Macklem admitted that consumer and business confidence has been “sharply affected” by recent developments. That’s putting it mildly. The Canadian dollar has dropped nearly 5% since January, making everything imported from the U.S. more expensive. Meanwhile, Ottawa has responded to U.S. tariffs with a tit-for-tat strategy, placing nearly $30 billion in retaliatory tariffs on American goods. The BoC is now forced to clean up the wreckage, but it’s like trying to put out a fire with a garden hose.

And what about unemployment? Macklem dodged giving a direct forecast, but he didn’t exactly sound optimistic. “We expect the first quarter to be weaker,” he said. “If household demand, if business investment remains restrained in the second quarter, and you’ll likely see weakness in exports, you could see an even weaker second quarter.” That’s code for job losses. It’s already happening. The hiring freezes, the canceled investments—those translate into real layoffs, real pay cuts, real suffering for Canadian families.

Meanwhile, inflation expectations are rising. And once those expectations set in, they become nearly impossible to undo. Macklem was careful in his wording, but the meaning was clear: “Some prices are going to go up. We can’t change that. What we particularly don’t want to see is that first round of price increases have knock-on effects, causing other prices to go up… becoming generalized and ongoing inflation.” Translation: We know this is going to hurt Canadians, we just hope it doesn’t spiral out of control.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. The same policymakers who told you that inflation was “transitory” in 2021 and then jacked up rates at record speed are now telling you that trade war-driven inflation will be “temporary.” But remember this: the BoC is only reacting to the mess created by politicians. The real blame lies with the people in charge. And now, that’s Mark Carney.

Macklem refused to comment on Carney’s role as prime minister, insisting that the BoC remains “independent” from politics. That’s cute. But the damage is already done. Ottawa picked a fight with the U.S. and now the BoC is left trying to prevent a full-scale economic downturn. The problem is, monetary policy can’t fix bad leadership. Canadians are the ones who will pay the price.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Business

USAID reportedly burning, shredding classified documents

Published on March 12, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Casey Harper

The U.S. Agency for International Development is facing criticism after news broke that federal employees were reportedly told to burn or shred classified documents.

USAID has been the center of controversy since President Donald Trump took office, and billionaire Elon Musk directed the Department of Government Efficiency to expose a slew of spending items widely mocked and criticized, from transgender operas to propaganda overseas and more.

A senior USAID official reportedly sent a memo to employees directing them to destroy the documents, raising questions about legality and transparency at the embattled agency.

“Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,” reads the email obtained by Politico.

Hans von Spakovsky, a legal expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, wrote on X that “these employees are committing felonies under 18 USC 1519 in destroying Gov documents,” arguing that they “should all be criminally prosecuted especially acting director of USAID.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced last week that 83% of of USAID contracts were terminated, though a federal judge has limited the federal government’s ability to stop paying out at least some contracts. Where this lands legally remains unclear as it works its way through the courts.

“In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping (approximately 1000) to now be administered more effectively under the State Department,” Rubio said.