David Clinton
How would provinces and cities survive if the federal government collapsed?
How Resilient Are Canadian Provinces?
Suppose one fine day the federal government was unable to show up for work. Perhaps it wasn’t feeling well. Or maybe it had borrowed so much money that it maxed out its line of credit, defaulted on its interest payments, and just couldn’t pay its bills. What then?
Let’s say – and I’m just spitballing here – let’s say that exploding, uncontrolled public debt is a bad thing. All the smart people tell us that taking on too much credit card debt won’t end well, right? Well I can’t think of any solid reason that such logic shouldn’t also apply to governments.¹
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
As you can see from the graph, our federal public debt climbed from $351 billion in 1990 all the way to $884 billion in 2024. The 50 percent leap between Q4 2019 and Q4 2021 was the generous gift of COVID. Things started to recover in mid-2023, but they’ve since nose dived once again.
 |
Ah, but that’s just debt you say. It’s someone else’s problem.
Not exactly. You see, even if we’re not paying down the principle on the debt, you can be sure that we’re covering interest payments. Which, it just so happens, have become a lot more expensive ever since massive government borrowing drove up interest rates.
How much more expensive? As of Q1 2024, our annual interest payments totaled $11.7 billion, compared with $6.2 billion back in Q1 2022. Put differently, the interest we pay each year comes to seven percent of our total federal budget.
I’m certainly not going to confidently predict that the federal government will soon default on interest payments, lose access to capital markets, and begin laying off government workers and shutting down services. But I wouldn’t say that it can’t happen either.
Given that possibility, what can provinces and cities do right now to prepare for a sudden (hopefully brief) disruption? First off, though, what exactly is a province?
As defined by the British North America Acts, areas of the exclusive responsibility of the federal government include:
- Public debt and property
- Regulation of trade and commerce
- Criminal law
- Militia, military and naval service, and defense
- Navigation and shipping
- Banking, incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money
- Bankruptcy and insolvency
- Naturalization and aliens
- Unemployment insurance
Provinces are responsible for:
- Property and civil rights
- Administration of justice (including policing)
- Municipal institutions
- Education
- Health and welfare
- Natural resources
So a short-term federal disruption might not have much of an impact on most Canadians’ day-to-day activities. Federal employees and UI recipients would have to figure out how to survive without their paychecks and border entry points would shut down. But great news! Your criminal prosecution can go ahead on schedule because, while criminal law is controlled by the feds, lower criminal courts are provincial.
On the other hand, consider how federal transfers contribute between around 15 percent (Alberta) and 40 percent (Atlantic provinces) of provincial budgets. And Toronto’s municipal budget, for instance, includes around 15 percent in transfers from the province, and another five percent from the federal government. So it wouldn’t take long before all levels of government begin to feel the heat.
I’m not suggesting we change Canadian federalism (good luck trying). But a province that’s reduced or eliminated its own budget deficit and successfully weaned itself from incoming federal transfers would probably enjoy a smoother trip through a shutdown. Exploring the legality of temporarily taking over the payroll for critical federal roles (like Border Services), for instance, might also pay dividends when push came to shove.
I would suggest that thinking formally about these issues would be an important part of any government’s emergency planning preparedness. Yesterday was the best time to start. But today is the next best option.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Post-COVID, the claims of Modern Monetary Theory proponents didn’t age well.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Super-high income taxes don’t increase government revenues. But can taxes be “smart”?
Reducing poverty and its harms is among the most urgent responsibilities of any modern government. But despite the claims of some activists, this particular problem has no obvious and easy solution. I’m going to suggest that targeting income inequality in particular is a waste of time.
First of all, income in Canada is actually not all that unequal. Income inequality is often measured by the Gini Coefficient. A Gini score of zero would represent total income equality, where everyone earns exactly the same amount. A score of one (or, sometimes, 100) represents perfect inequality, meaning one person has all the income, and everyone else has none.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Statistics Canada data shows changes to the Gini Coefficient in Canada between 1976 and 2022:
Relatively speaking, those numbers are quite low and – when you ignore the weird COVID years – they also haven’t changed much since 1976. For comparison, the U.S. Gini coefficient in 2023 was 0.47, while (Communist!) China’s was 0.465 – both significantly higher than ours. The worst and best scores are, respectively, claimed by South Africa (.63) and Norway (.23).
But the real reason that talking about income inequality is an unnecessary distraction, is because there’s nothing you can do about it.
As I pointed out in a recent article, the 2 percent of Canadians whose assessed taxable incomes are above $250,000 contribute nearly 30 percent of all personal income tax revenue. They’re already clearly – and for the most part willingly – carrying far more than their share.
Ok. But why not slap the super-rich with a 90 percent marginal income tax? Well that’s been tried. The Beatles even recorded an angry song about it. But as far as I can tell, such taxes have always led to decreasing tax revenues. That’s because the people you’re targeting will either decide to earn less or simply move their businesses and assets to more tax-friendly countries – that often come with the added bonus of good weather.
If you’d ask me for my opinion, I’d say that the federal government could easily free up billions of dollars to address poverty by cutting waste. And a good first step in that direction would involve sharply decreasing the size of our bloated civil service.
How those extra funds could be better spent in a way that actually helps the poor isn’t a simple question. And it’s something you’d definitely want to get right on the first shot. Not to mention that some problems just can be solved with more money.
But in the unlikely event that you did find an expensive solution AND money freed up by new government efficiencies wasn’t enough, one might consider an intelligently designed wealth tax. Wealth taxes – which can take the form of property and estate taxes – have been used for centuries. The catch is that, if they’re poorly designed, they can be destructive. Just imagine a tax on real estate worth more than a million dollars that ends up wiping out seniors counting on the value of their homes to fund their retirements.
An OECD report from a few years back identifies a long list of developed countries whose wealth taxes largely failed to deliver significant revenue boosts. Those included Spain, Austria, Denmark, and Germany.
Norway, with a wealth tax worth as much as 1.5 percent of net wealth, was one of the report’s few success stories. But even they now seem to be having serious problems with compliance. Apparently, rich and industrious Norwegians are leaving the country in such high numbers that the government has imposed a punitive exit tax. I’m sure that’ll work out just great. (The Free Press recently published a piece on Norway’s problem.)
Nevertheless, if there is a universe where the words “smart” and “tax” can happily co-exist in a single sentence, then it’s more likely to work when you also find a way to include “wealth”, “balanced”, and “focused”.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
If you enjoy The Audit, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.
We’ve discussed the housing crisis before. That would include the destabilizing combination of housing availability – in particular a weak supply of new construction – and the immigration-driven population growth.
Parsing all the data can be fun, but we shouldn’t forget the human costs of the crisis. There’s the significant financial strain caused by rising ownership and rental costs, the stress so many experience when desperately searching for somewhere decent to live, and the pressure on businesses struggling to pay workers enough to survive in madly expensive cities.
If Canada doesn’t have the resources to house Canadians, should there be fewer of us?
Well we’ve also discussed the real problems caused by low fertility rates. As they’ve already discovered in low-immigration countries like Japan and South Korea, there’s the issue of who will care for the growing numbers of childless elderly. And who – as working-age populations sharply decline – will sign up for the jobs that are necessary to keep things running.
How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The odds are that we’re only a decade or so behind Japan. Remember how a population’s replacement-level fertility rate is around 2.1 percent? Here’s how Canadian “fertility rates per female” have dropped since 1991:
 |
Put differently, Canada’s crude birth rate per 1,000 population dropped from 14.4 in 1991, to 8.8 in 2023.
As a nation, we face very difficult constraints.
But there’s another cost to our problems that’s both powerful and personal, and it exists at a place that overlaps both crises. A recent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) frames it in terms of suppressed household formation.
Household formation happens when two more more people choose to share a home. As I’ve written previously, there are enormous economic benefits to such arrangements, and the more permanent and stable the better. There’s also plenty of evidence that children raised within stable families have statistically improved economic, educational, and social outcomes.
But if households can’t form, there won’t be a lot of children.
In fact, the PBO projects that population and housing availability numbers point to the suppression of nearly a half a million households in 2030. And that’s incorporating the government’s optimistic assumptions about their new Immigration Levels Plan (ILP) to reduce targets for both permanent and temporary residents. It also assumes that all 2.8 million non-permanent residents will leave the country when their visas expire. Things will be much worse if either of those assumptions doesn’t work out according to plan.
Think about a half a million suppressed households. That number represents the dreams and life’s goals of at least a million people. Hundreds of thousands of 30-somethings still living in their parents basements. Hundreds of thousands of stable, successful, and socially integrated families that will never exist.
And all that will be largely (although not exclusively) the result of dumb-as-dirt political decisions.
Who says policy doesn’t matter?
How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine
Proposed $70 billion AI data centre in MD of Greenview could launch an incredible new chapter for western Canadian energy
The White Pill: Big Government Can Be Defeated (Just Ask the Soviet Union)
Delusional Rumour Driving Some Migrants in Mexico to Reach US Border
Freeland Resignation Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Speaks to Reporters in Ottawa
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland resigns from Trudeau Cabinet
Paul Wells: Perhaps Freeland isn’t the victim here. Perhaps it’s Freeland who set Trudeau up
-
National2 days agoWhen is the election!? Singh finally commits and Poilievre asks Governor General to step in
-
COVID-192 days agoFormer Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation
-
Alberta2 days agoFree Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
Business2 days agoDOGE already on the job: How Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy caused the looming government shutdown
-
National2 days agoCanadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute
-
National1 day agoConservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy19 hours agoChristmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup