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

Deep State Deconstruction: DOGE and Treasury

Business / 4 hours ago

Mark Carney’s carbon tax plan hurts farmers

Business / 9 hours ago

Do Minimum Wage Laws Accomplish Anything?

Business

Mark Carney’s carbon tax plan hurts farmers

Published on February 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Gage Haubrich

Liberal leadership front-runner Mark Carney recently announced his carbon tax plan and here are some key points.

It’s expensive for Canadians.

It’s even more expensive for farmers.

Carney announced he would immediately remove the consumer carbon tax if he became prime minister.

That sounds like good news, but it’s important to read the fine print.

Carney went on and announced that he would be “integrating a new consumer carbon credit market into the industrial pricing system.” Carney also said he would “improve and tighten” the industrial carbon tax and impose carbon tax tariffs on imports into Canada.

If that sounds like Carney isn’t getting rid of the carbon tax, that’s because he isn’t. He’s trying to hide the costs from Canadians by imposing higher carbon taxes on businesses.

What that means is that Carney’s plan would tax businesses and then businesses will pass those costs onto consumers.

That also means farmers.

Under the current carbon tax, farmers have an exemption from the carbon tax on the gas and diesel they use on their farm. The hidden industrial carbon tax is applied directly to industry. Businesses are forced to pay the carbon tax if they emit above the government’s prescribed limit.

But businesses don’t just swallow those costs. They pass them on. The trucking industry is a great example.

“Due to razor thin margins in the trucking industry, these added costs cannot be absorbed and must be passed on to customers,” said the Canadian Trucking Alliance when analyzing the current Trudeau carbon tax.

The same concept applies to the Carney scheme.

If Carney removes the consumer carbon tax and replaces it with a higher tax on businesses under the hidden industrial carbon tax, that means more costs for farmers.

There isn’t any exemption for farmers under the industrial carbon tax. Oil and gas refineries will be paying a higher carbon tax and they will be forced to pass that cost onto their consumers. Farmers use a lot of fuel.

The pain doesn’t stop there. Farmers also use a lot of fertilizer and Carney’s carbon tax means higher costs for fertilizer plants. Then farmers will be stuck paying more for fertilizer.

Some businesses, like those fertilizer plants, could pack up and move production south. But farmers are still going to need fertilizer. Carney’s plan compounds the pain with carbon tax tariffs.

Fertilizer is only one example. If Canadian farmers need to buy a part to fix equipment that can only come from the U.S., it could be more expensive because of Carney’s carbon tax tariffs.

This will hurt Canadian farmers when they’re buying supplies. But it’ll also hurt when farmers when they go to market. Canadian farmers compete with farmers around the world and majority of them aren’t paying carbon taxes.

Farmers wouldn’t be at a disadvantage because American farmers are smarter or farm better, but because, under Carney’s carbon tax, they would be stuck paying costs competitors don’t have to pay. And farmers know this all too well.

“My competitors to the south of me in the United States do not pay that [carbon] tax, so now my cost goes up and I have no alternative,” said Jeff Barlow, a corn, wheat and soybean farmer in Ontario. “By penalizing me there’s nothing else that I can do but just be penalized.”

And if farmers won’t be the only ones hurt.

Families across Canada are struggling with grocery prices and increasing the cost of production for farmers certainly won’t lower those prices.

Carney says that he wants to cancel the consumer tax because it’s too “divisive.” That statement misses the nail completely and hammers the thumb. Canadians don’t want to get rid of the carbon tax because of perception, they want to get rid of it because it makes life more expensive.

Carney needs to commit to getting rid of carbon taxes, not rebranding the failed policy into something that could end up costing Canadians and farmers even more.

Business

Do Minimum Wage Laws Accomplish Anything?

Published on February 9, 2025

Todayville

David Clinton

All the smart people tell us that, one way or another, increasing the minimum wage will change society. Proponents claim raising pay at the low end of the economy will help low-income working families survive in hyper-expensive communities. Opponents claim that artificially increasing employment costs will either drive employers towards adopting innovative automation integrations or to shut down their businesses altogether. Either way, goes the anti-intervention narrative, there will be fewer jobs available.

Well, what’ll it be? Canadian provinces have been experimenting with minimum wage laws for many years. And since 2021, the federal government has imposed its own rate for employees of all federally regulated industries. There should be plenty of good data out there by now indicating who was right.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

Historical records on provincial rates going back decades is available from Statistics Canada. For this research, I used data starting in 2011. Since new rates often come into effect mid-year, I only applied a year’s latest rate to the start of the following year. 2022 itself, for simplicity, was measured by the new federal rate, with the exception of British Columbia who’s rate was $0.10 higher than the federal rate.

My goal was to look for evidence that increasing statutory wage rates impacted these areas:

Earnings among workers in full-service restaurants
Operating profit margins for full-service restaurants
Total numbers of active businesses in the accommodation and food services industries

I chose to focus on the food service industry because it’s particularly dependent on low-wage workers and particularly sensitive to labour costs. Outcomes here should tell us a lot about the impact such government policies are having.

Restaurant worker income is reported as total numbers. In other words, we can see how much all of, say, Manitoba’s workers combined took home in a given year. For those numbers to make sense, I adjusted them using overall provincial populations.

Income in British Columbia and PEI showed a strong correlation to increasing minimum wages. Interestingly, BC has consistently had the highest of all provinces’ minimum wage while PEI’s has mostly hung around the middle of the pack. Besides a weak negative correlation in Saskatchewan, there was no indication that income in other provinces either dropped or grew in sync with increases to the minimum wage.

Nation-wide, by weighting results by population numbers, we got a Pearson coefficient 0.30. That means it’s unlikely that wage rate changes had any impact on take-home income.

Did increases harm restaurants? It doesn’t look like it. I used data measuring active employer businesses in the accommodation and food services industries. No provinces showed any impact on business startups and exits that could be connected to minimum wage laws. Overall, Canada’s coefficient value was 0.29 – again a very weak positive relationship.

So restaurants haven’t been collapsing at epic, extinction-level rates. But do government minimums cause a reduction in their operating profit margins? Apparently not. If anything, they’ve become more profitable!

The nation-wide coefficient between minimum wages and restaurant profitability was 0.88 – suggesting a strong correlation. But how could that be happening? Don’t labour costs make up a major chunk of food service operating expenses? Here are a few possible explanations:

Perhaps many restaurants respond to rising costs by increasing their menu prices. This can work out well if market demand turns out to be relatively inelastic and people continue eating out despite higher prices.
Higher wages might lead to lower employee turnover, reducing hiring and training costs.
A higher minimum wage boosts worker incomes, leading to more disposable income in the economy. Although the flip-side is that we can’t see strong evidence of higher worker income.
Higher wages can force unprofitable, inefficient restaurants to close, leaving stronger businesses with higher market share.

In any case, my big-picture verdict on government intervention into private sector wage rates is: thanks but don’t bother. All that effort doesn’t seem to have improved actual incomes on a population scale. At the same time, it also hasn’t driven industries with workers at the low-end of the pay scale to devastating collapse.

But I’m sure it has taken up enormous amounts of public service time and resources that could undoubtedly have been more gainfully spent elsewhere. More important, as the economist Alex Tabarrok recently pointed out, minimum wage laws have been shown to reduce employment for the disabled and measurably increase both consumer prices and workplace injuries.

Subscribe to The Audit