Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

Canada may not be broken but Ottawa is definitely broke: Jack Mintz

Published

1 year ago

7 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Jack Mintz

With growth flat and interest payments ballooning there’s no room for new spending unless deficits are cranked up again — a bad idea

In her economic update Tuesday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland just couldn’t help taking a swipe at Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre when she declared: “Canada is not and has never been broken.” In the early 1990s, Canada did come close to needing IMF assistance, but Liberal finance minister Paul Martin’s 1995 budget pulled us back from the abyss by cutting program spending 20 per cent and putting the country back on a path towards balanced budgets. We did receive short-term finance from the IMF during the currency crisis of 1962, but we have never reneged on public debt, unlike hapless Argentina, which has defaulted nine times since its independence in 1816.

Canada may not be broken but the federal government is all but broke and is clearly running out of steam. With a weak economy growing only a little faster than population, there is not a lot of spending room left, not unless deficits and debts are cranked up again. As it is, debt as share of GDP jumps from 41.7 per cent in fiscal year 2022/23 to 42.4 per cent in 2023/24. So much for the fiscal anchors we were promised.

After that, the finance minister predicts, debt as a share of GDP will fall ever so gently to 39 per cent over the following four years. I am quite skeptical about five-year forecasts, especially from a government that over eight years has failed to keep any deficit and debt promises. The 2015 election commitment to cap the deficit at $10 billion is long gone. So is the promise to keep the debt/GDP ratio from rising.  Even before the pandemic, federal debt was creeping back up to over 30 per cent of GDP. After eye-popping spending during COVID, any plan to return to pre-pandemic levels has been ditched. Instead, we just accept debt at 40 per cent of GDP and move on. And if a recession hits, you can bet your bottom dollar — which may be the only dollar you have left — that federal debt/GDP will reach a new plateau, also never to be reversed.

As Albert Einstein once said, “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn’t … pays it.” With growing public debt charges, expenditures are rising 13.6 per cent over the next three years, faster than revenues, which are forecast to grow only 12.2 per cent. Much of this spending growth is due to interest payments that are rising by almost a half to $53 billion in 2025/26. That is a ton of money — many tons of money — that could have gone to health care, defence or even, yes, general tax cuts. Instead, we are filling the pockets of Canadian and foreign investors who find Canadian bonds very attractive at the interest rates they’re currently paying.

Small mercies: At least the Liberals feel obliged to say they will keep the lid on spending in the short term. Thus they forecast program spending rising by only 10.5 per cent over three years, with a program review expected to trim its growth by $15 billion. On the other hand, the forecast for deficits averages close to $40 billion a year for the next three years.

Economic updates used to be just that, reports on how things are going, but increasingly they are mini-budgets that introduce new measures. With the Liberals sinking in the polls, housing affordability is the focus. But with higher interest rates and more stringent climate and other regulations adding to construction costs, it is unclear how much more housing supply will grow even with the new measures. New spending over five years includes a $1-billion “affordable housing fund” and the previously announced $4.6 billion in GST relief on new rental construction. There’s also $15 billion in loans for apartment construction and $20 billion in low-cost, government-backed CMHC financing, neither of which adds to the deficit.

When money is scarce, of course, nanny-state regulations come into play, as well. A “mortgage charter” will guide banks on how to provide relief for distressed owners (even though banks already prefer to keep people in their homes rather than foreclose). Deductions incurred by operators of short-term rentals will be denied in those municipalities and provinces that prohibit such rentals. Temporary foreign workers in construction will get priority for permanent residence.

The housing plan wasn’t the only focus in the economic statement. To address affordability and climate change, the current government takes pride in its pyramid of budget-busting subsidies for clean energy and regulations dictating private-sector behaviour regarding such things as “junk fees” and grocery prices. There’s also GST relief for psychotherapists and more generous subsidies for journalists and news organizations. (I suppose I should bend a knee to the minister and doff my cap.)

What’s missing in the statement? It barely mentions the country’s poor productivity performance. And you will word-search in vain for “tax reform,” “general tax relief” or “deregulation” aimed at spurring private sector investment. No mention is made that accelerated tax depreciation for capital investment, introduced in 2018, is being phased out beginning January 1st, which will discourage private investment, including in housing construction. Instead, the Liberal economic plan is all about more government, not less, to grow the economy. Without the private sector, that’s not going to work.

Before Post

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Alberta / 3 hours ago

Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn

Business / 6 hours ago

Trump’s government efficiency department plans to cut $500 Billion in unauthorized expenditures, including funding for Planned Parenthood

Alberta / 9 hours ago

Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime

Business

Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million

Published on November 19, 2024

By

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Ryan Thorpe

The cost of administering the federal carbon tax and rebate scheme has risen to $283 million since it was imposed in 2019, according to government records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

By 2030, the cost of administering the carbon tax is expected to total $796 million, according to the records.

“Not only does the carbon tax make our gas, heating and groceries more expensive, but taxpayers are also hit with a big bill to fund Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s battalion of carbon tax bureaucrats,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Trudeau should make life more affordable and slash the cost of the bureaucracy by scrapping the carbon tax.”

The government records were released in response to an order paper question from Conservative MP John Barlow (Foothills).

The carbon tax and rebate scheme cost taxpayers $84 million in 2023, according to the records.

There were 461 federal bureaucrats tasked with administering the carbon tax and rebate scheme last year, according to the records.

The CTF previously reported administering the carbon tax cost taxpayers $199 million between 2019 and 2022.

Projected costs for administering the carbon tax and rebate scheme between 2024 and 2030 are $513 million, according to the records.

That would bring total administration costs for the carbon tax and rebate scheme up to $796 million by 2030.

But the true hit to taxpayers is even higher, as the records do not include costs associated with the Fuel Charge Tax Credit for Farmers or the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses.

“It’s magic math to believe the feds can raise taxes, skim hundreds-of-millions off the top to hire hundreds of new bureaucrats and then somehow make everyone better off with rebates,” Terrazzano said.

The carbon tax will cost the average household up to $399 this year more than the rebates, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government’s independent, non-partisan budget watchdog.

The PBO also notes that, “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”

The government also charges its GST on top of the carbon tax. The PBO report shows this carbon tax-on-tax will cost taxpayers $400 million this year. That money isn’t rebated back to Canadians.

The carbon tax currently costs 17 cents per litre of gasoline, 21 cents per litre of diesel and 15 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.

By 2030, the carbon tax will cost 37 cents per litre of gasoline, 45 cents per litre of diesel and 32 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.

Continue Reading

Economy

COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.

Published on November 16, 2024

By

From Energy Talking Points

The injustice of climate reparations

COP 29 is calling for over $1 trillion in annual climate reparations

  • A major theme of COP 29 is that the world should set a “New Collective Quantified Goal” wherein successful nations pay poor nations over $1 trillion a year to 1) make up for climate-related harm and 2) build them new “green energy” economies. In other words, climate reparations.¹
  • What would $1 trillion a year in climate reparations mean for you and your family?Assuming the money was paid equally by households considered high income (>$50 per day), your household would have to pay more than $5,000 a year in climate reparations taxes!²
  • Climate reparations are based on two false assumptions:1. Free, wealthy countries, through their fossil fuel use, have made the world worse for poor countries.

    2. The poor world’s main problem is dealing with climate change, which wealth transfers will help them with.

But free, fossil-fueled countries have made life better for poor countries

  • Free, wealthy countries, through their fossil fuel use, have not made the world worse for poor countries—they have made it far, far better.Observe what has happened to global life expectancies and income as fossil fuel use has risen. Life has gotten much better for everyone.³
  • The wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has improved life worldwide because by using fossil fuel energy to be incredibly productive, we have 1) made all kinds of goods cheaper and 2) been able to engage in life-saving aid, particularly in the realms of food, medicine, and sanitation.
  • Without the historic use of fossil fuels by the wealthy world, there would be no super-productive agriculture to feed 8 billion humans, no satellite-based weather warning systems, etc. Most of the individuals in poor countries would not even be alive today.

Free, fossil-fueled countries have made the poor safer from climate

  • The wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has been particularly beneficial in the realm of climate.Over the last 100 years, the death rate from climate-related disasters plummeted by 98% globally.

    A big reason is millions of lives saved from drought via fossil-fueled crop transport.⁴
  • The “climate reparations” movement ignores the fact that the wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has made life better, including safer from climate, in the poor world.This allows it to pretend that the poor world’s main problem is dealing with rising CO2 levels.

The poor world’s problem is poverty, not rising CO2 levels

  • The poor world’s main problem is not rising CO2 levels, it is poverty—which is caused by lack of freedom, including the crucial freedom to use fossil fuels.Poverty makes everything worse, including the world’s massive natural climate danger and any danger from more CO2.
  • While it’s not true that the wealthy world has increased climate danger in the poor world—we have reduced it—it is true that the poor world is more endangered by climate than the wealthy world is.The solution is for the poor to get rich. Which requires freedom and fossil fuels.⁵

Escaping poverty requires freedom and fossil fuels

  • Every nation that has risen out of poverty has done so via pro-freedom policies—specifically, economic freedom. 

    That’s how resource-poor places like Singapore and Taiwan became prosperous. Resource-rich places like Congo have struggled due to lack of economic freedom.

  • Even China, which is unfree in many ways (including insufficient protections against pollution) dramatically increased its standard of living via economic freedom—particularly in the realm of industrial development where it is now in many ways much freer than the US and Europe.
  • A crucial freedom involved in rising prosperity has been the freedom to use fossil fuels.Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective source of energy, providing energy that’s low-cost, reliable, versatile, and scalable to billions of people in thousands of places.⁶
  • Time and again nations have increased their prosperity, including their safety from climate, via economic freedom and fossil fuels.Observe the 7X increase in fossil fuel use in China and India over the past 4 decades, which enabled them to industrialize and prosper.⁷
  • For the world’s poorest people to be more prosperous and safer from climate, they need more freedom and more fossil fuels.The “climate reparations” movement seeks to deny them both.
  • The wealthy world should communicate to the poor world that economic freedom is the path to prosperity, and encourage the poor world to reform its cultural and political institutions to embrace economic freedom—including fossil fuel freedom.Our leaders are doing the opposite.

Climate reparations pay off dictators to take away fossil fuel freedom

  • Instead of promoting economic freedom, including fossil fuel freedom, wealthy climate reparations advocates like Antonio Guterres are offering to entrench anti-freedom regimes by paying off their dictators and bureaucrats to eliminate fossil fuel freedom.This is disgusting.⁸
  • The biggest victim of “climate reparations” will be the world’s poorest countries, whose dictators will be paid off to prevent the fossil fuel freedom that has allowed not just the US and Europe but also China and India to dramatically increase their prosperity.
  • The biggest beneficiary of “climate reparations” will be China, which is already emitting more CO2 than the US and Europe combined. (Though less per capita.)While we flagellate and cripple ourselves, China will use fossil fuels in its quest to become the world’s superpower.⁹
  • The second biggest beneficiary of “climate reparations” will be corrupt do-gooders who get to add anti-fossil-fuel strings to “reparations” dollars and dictate how it’s spent—which will surely include lots of dollars for unreliable solar panels and wind turbines made in China.

Leaders must reject reparations and champion fossil fuel freedom

  • We need leaders in the US and Europe who proudly:1. Champion the free world’s use of fossil fuels as an enormous good for the world, including its climate safety.

    2. Encourage the poor world to embrace economic freedom and fossil fuels.

    Tell your Representative to do both.

Share

Popular links

“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.

Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein

1  Scientific American – COP27 Summit Yields ‘Historic Win’ for Climate Reparations but Falls Short on Emissions Reductions
2  Global population was about 8.02 billion in 2023.

World Bank data

About 7% of world population are considered high income, which translates into about 562 million individuals. Considering 3 people per average household in high income households, this translates into about 187 million households.
Pew Research – Are you in the global middle class? Find out with our income calculator

$1 trillion per annum paid by 187 million households means the average household would pay about $5,300 per year.

3  Maddison Database 2010 at the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen
4  UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s.

Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

5  UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates come from World Bank Data.

6  Our World in Data – Energy Production and Consumption
7  BP – Statistical Review of World Energy
8  UN News – ‘Pay up or humanity will pay the price’, Guterres warns at COP29 climate summit
9  Our World in Data – Annual CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels, by world region
Continue Reading

Trending

X