Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

Finance minister misleading Canadians about economic growth

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland recently said Canada will have “the strongest economic growth in the G7.” But is that true? And are Canadians better off because of it?

The Trudeau government regularly uses comparisons among  G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) to gauge Canada’s economic performance. And when comparing economic growth in the aggregate (meaning overall growth, as measured by GDP), Minister Freeland is correct that Canada’s economy performs well compared to the rest of the G7.

Specifically, from 2000 to 2023, Canada’s average GDP growth (adjusted for inflation) was second-highest in the G7 at 1.8 per cent annually (only behind the U.S.). And in a recent report, the International Monetary Fund projected that Canada’s overall GDP growth will be second-highest in 2024, and lead the G7 in 2025.

But there’s a serious problem with these measures—they fail to account for population growth rates in each country and therefore don’t measure whether or not individuals are actually better off.

Simply put, economies grow when there are more people producing goods and services (i.e. the population grows) or when people are able to produce more per hour worked (i.e. productivity increases). In recent years, the Canadian economy has grown almost exclusively due to population growth, which has grown at historic rates due to record levels of immigration, while productivity has declined to the point it’s now considered an emergency.

In fact, from 2000 to 2023, Canada led the G7 in average annual population growth, which has served to inflate the country’s rate of aggregate GDP growth.

So, to more accurately measure Canada’s economic performance relative to other countries, economists use GDP per person, which accounts for differing population growth rates. This measure is a much better indicator of individual incomes and living standards.

On this measure, Canada is an economic laggard. Canada’s average annual growth rate in GDP per person (inflation-adjusted) from 2000 to 2023 was 0.7 per cent—tied for second-last in the G7, above only Italy (0.1 per cent).

If you include a broader subset of advanced economies, and focus on the Trudeau government’s tenure, the picture is even worse. From 2014 to 2022 (the latest year of available data), Canada was tied for the third-lowest average annual growth rate in inflation-adjusted GDP per person out of 30 countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Canada’s average growth rate during that period (0.6 per cent) was only ahead of Luxembourg (0.5 per cent) and Mexico (0.4 per cent).

Looking ahead, Canada’s long-term economic prospects are similarly dismal. According to the OECD, Canada is expected to see the lowest average annual growth rate in GDP per person in the OECD, from 2020 to 2030 and 2030 to 2060.

When Minister Freeland boasts about aggregate GDP numbers—while ignoring how historic levels of population growth fuelled by record-high immigration inflate the numbers—she’s misleading Canadians. In reality, Canadian living standards are falling behind the rest of the developed world, and are expected to fall further behind in years to come.

Business

‘We Had A Bad Experience’: Chinese Officials Losing Sleep Over Thought Of Dealing With Second Trump Term

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By Jake Smith

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials quietly believe that a second Donald Trump presidency would be more dangerous to them than a Kamala Harris administration, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

The Biden-Harris administration’s relationship with Beijing has been marred with tensions in recent years over diplomatic, economic and national security disputes. But Chinese officials would seemingly still rather have Harris win in November over Trump because they worry that the former president will open up another trade war against China, officials told the WSJ.

“Chinese officials and scholars, in private conversations over many months, are largely exceptionally wary of a Trump victory,” Richard McGregor, China expert at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, told the WSJ.

Those worries are largely kept quiet. Publicly, Chinese officials maintain a stance of neutrality toward the U.S. elections. Chinese President Xi Jinping wrote in a letter last week that China had always handled relations with the U.S. with “mutual respect” and said that Beijing “is willing to work with the United States as partners and friends.”

“The presidential elections are the United States’ own affairs,” a spokesman from the Chinese Embassy in the U.S. told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We hope that whoever gets elected will be committed to growing sound and stable China-U.S. ties.”

Beijing wants whoever the next president is to take a predictable stance toward relations and dial back the U.S.’ tough-on-China stance. Privately, officials felt that standard was better reflected in President Joe Biden over Trump and thought his reelection would be better for China, according to the WSJ.

After Biden dropped out of the race in July, Beijing felt the same about Harris, officials told the WSJ.

“Under Trump, we had a bad experience,” senior CCP diplomat Liu Jianchao bemoaned during a closed-door session with U.S. think tanks earlier in the year.

The concerns of a second Trump term among Chinese officials stem from fears he will launch a second trade war against China, as he did in his first term, according to the WSJ.

Trump issued a sweeping set of tariffs against China during his first term — adding a tax to imports coming in from the country — in a bid to encourage domestic U.S. investment and compel China to buy more American goods.

Xi and those and his orbit became exhausted in trying to maneuver the trade war and Trump’s demands, according to the WSJ. Trump has weighed the idea in his second term to issue a 60% tariff against incoming Chinese goods, which economists at UBS have predicted could mark a 2.5% blow to China’s GDP growth over a year-long period.

Trump has also recently weighed the idea of using the threat of tariffs to deter China from invading Taiwan, even musing that he would completely halt trade relations if the island is taken by force, which has been received extremely poorly in Beijing.

“I would say: If you go into Taiwan, I’m sorry to do this, I’m going to tax you”—meaning impose tariffs—“at 150% to 200%,” Trump told the WSJ in an interview on Thursday.

The Trump and Harris campaigns did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Dan McTeague

Ottawa’s intentional destruction of western wealth

Published on

From Canadians for Affordable Energy

Dan McTeague

Written By Dan McTeague

Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream. 

At this point, everyone in Canada has heard about the Carbon Tax and had a chance to experience its negative effects. But less has been said about another harmful policy dreamed up by the Trudeau government — the Emissions Cap on the oil and gas sector. Just like the Carbon Tax, the Emissions Cap is part of Trudeau’s larger program to try and achieve “Net Zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, which will have no positive impact on the environment, but which will be ruinous to Canada’s natural resource sector and to the national economy.

In their 2021 platform, the Liberals made a commitment to “cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector” and proclaimed that that industry must reduce emissions “at a pace and scale needed to achieve net-zero by 2050.” As promised, in December 2023 the Trudeau government proposed an Emissions Cap to reduce GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector by 42 percent by 2030. Keep in mind Canada contributes only 1.5% of global emissions, so this plan, even if accomplished, would reduce global emissions by less than one half of one percent.

Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream. After all, the oil and gas industry generates $45 billion per year in annual economic activity, and contributes $170 billion per year to the GDP.

But don’t take my word for it. According to a Deloitte report commissioned by the Government of Alberta, an Emissions Cap would lead to a 10% decrease in Alberta’s oil production and a 16% decrease in conventional natural gas production. Fossil fuel production would decrease in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland as well. Other industries connected to the oil and gas sector such as the mining, refinery products, and utilities are also expected to be impacted and will experience a decrease in output in Alberta and the rest of Canada.

The report goes on to state that in 2040 “Alberta’s GDP is estimated to be lower by 4.5% and Canada’s GDP by 1.0% compared to the baseline.”

It notes that because it is assumed that “the Cap is a permanent measure, the shift in the output of the oil and gas sector and associated losses are permanent and accumulate over time. Cumulatively, over the 2030 to 2040 period, we estimate that real GDP in Alberta is $191 billion lower and real GDP in the Rest of Canada is $91 billion lower, compared to the baseline scenario ($2017 dollars).”

Of course, the environmentalists will crow that the oil and gas industry is dying anyway and the demand for oil and gas around the world is slowly decreasing, but this is simply not true.

Global demand for oil and gas is only growing and will continue to do so. According to the report, “Based on current policy and before the impact of the Cap, we expect: Oil production in Canada to increase by 27% by 2030 and 32% by 2040 from 2021 levels; and Gas production in Canada to increase by 10% by 2030 and 16% by 2040 from 2021 levels.”

And this isn’t the only study which projects negative outcomes from this policy. The Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) released a study which describes how the Trudeau government’s proposed Emissions Cap for the energy sector would “cost the Canadian economy between $44.8 billion and $79.3 billion a year” and would “cause substantial losses, without achieving any net reduction in global emission.”

You can read the study here.

Plus it is worth noting that this emissions cap will result in “substantial losses without achieving any net reduction in global emissions.”

Why? Because of the increase in global demands for oil and gas, we can either produce those resources here or get them from another country that has no environmental, much less labour standards, such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.

To add insult to injury for the oil and gas producing provinces, and as I’ve pointed out in the past, this cap on emissions would apply only to the oil and gas sector. This emissions cap would not apply to the concrete industry, the automotive industry, or the mining industry. And — surprise surprise — it certainly won’t apply to Montreal’s lucrative jet-building industry.

But take heed: this isn’t simply an Alberta issue. This is a Canadian issue and one that everyone in Canada should be concerned about.

The umbrella of Net Zero by 2050 is large and far reaching, and an emissions cap is simply one part of a multi-layered attack on our economy and way of life. Carbon taxes, layered on top of a Clean Fuel Standard, layered on top of pipeline blockages, layered on top of Bills C-48 and C-69, preventing oil from being shipped from other parts of the world — will run counter to our national interests, and endanger the Canadian way of life for generations to come.

If Canadians are now vehemently opposed to carbon taxes, as we suggested would be the case half a dozen years ago, wait for this unnecessary burden to befall them.

In the words made famous by the Canadian rock legend BTO, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X