Business
Ignore Ottawa’s talking points—Canada is a highly indebted country

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss
Canada falls 21 positions in international rankings after switching from net debt to gross debt, the largest change by far of any country.
The Trudeau government has claimed that Canada “continues to have an enviable fiscal and debt position relative to international peers” because we have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. But this is misleading. In reality, Canada is actually a highly indebted country relative to our international peers.
The government’s claim originates from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which notes that Canada has the lowest level of net debt (as a share of its economy) among G7 countries including Germany, Italy, Japan, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. But this specific measure of debt subtracts financial assets from total government debt.
Here’s why that’s a problem.
Again, when calculating net debt, you subtract financial assets because you assume those assets could be used to offset debt. The glaring problem here is that Canada’s financial assets include the assets of Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), which substantially reduce Canada’s net debt. Indeed, according to the latest data from Statistics Canada, there were net assets of $716.7 billion in the combined CPP and QPP as of Dec. 31, 2023.
But the assets of the CPP and QPP are used for payments to existing and future retirees and can’t be used to offset government debt without compromising the ability of the CPP and QPP to provide benefits to retirees. So, Canada having the lowest net debt-to-GDP in the G7 doesn’t mean much when CPP and QPP assets are incorrectly used to make us look less indebted than we actually are.
Thankfully, there’s a much more accurate way to measure of Canada’s indebtedness—gross debt-to-GDP. Gross debt, according to the IMF, includes all “liabilities that require future payment of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor.” And extending the analysis to include a broader group of advanced countries provides a more accurate assessment of Canada’s comparative indebtedness.
According to a new study, among 32 industrialized countries, Canada slides from the 5th-lowest debt ranking when net debt is measured to 26th when gross debt is used. Further, Canada’s gross debt exceeds the total size of the national economy by nearly 5 percentage points. In other words, Canada falls 21 positions in international rankings after switching from net debt to gross debt, the largest change by far of any country.
The consequences of fiscal imprudence are clear. Just like households, governments must pay interest on debt. In 2024, Canada’s federal debt interest costs are expected to eclipse $54.0 billion—equal to the entire amount of revenue the government collects from the Goods and Services Tax (GST). And debt must be repaid by future generations of Canadians through tax increases or reduction in services.
When the Trudeau government claims that Canada is in an enviable position relative to our peers on government indebtedness, it is misleading Canadians. The data clearly show that Canada is among the most indebted advanced economies in the world. That’s not something to boast about.
Author:
2025 Federal Election
Next federal government should end corporate welfare for forced EV transition

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss
Corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.
General Motors recently announced the temporary closure of its electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing plant in Ontario, laying off 500 people because its new EV isn’t selling. The plant will shut down for six months despite hundreds of millions in government subsides financed by taxpayers. This is just one more example of corporate welfare—when governments subsidize favoured industries and companies—and it’s time for the provinces and the next federal government to eliminate it.
Between the federal government and Ontario government, GM received about $500 million to help fund its EV transition. But this is just one example of corporate welfare in the auto sector. Stellantis and Volkswagen will receive about $28 billion in government subsidies while Honda is promised $5 billion.
More broadly, from 2007 to 2019, the last pre-COVID year of data, the federal government spent an estimated $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on corporate welfare while provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion. And crucially, these numbers exclude other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the actual cost of corporate welfare during this period was much higher.
Of course, politicians claim that corporate welfare benefits workers. Yet according to a significant body of research, corporate welfare fails to generate widespread economic benefit. Think of it this way—if the businesses that received subsidies were viable to begin with, they wouldn’t need government support. So unprofitable companies are kept in business through governments’ support, which can prevent resources, including investment and workers, from moving to profitable companies, hurting overall economic growth.
Put differently, rather than fuelling economic growth, corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.
Governments also must impose higher tax rates on everyone else to pay for corporate welfare. In turn, higher tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and business investment—again, which fuels economic growth. And the higher the tax rates, the more economic activity they discourage.
GM’s EV plant shut down once again proves that when governments try to engineer the economy with corporate welfare, workers will ultimately lose. It’s time for the provinces and the next federal government—whoever it may be—to finally put an end to this costly and ineffective policy approach.
Business
Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
A billionaire’s retail ambition might also serve Beijing’s global influence strategy. Canada must look beyond the storefront
When B.C. billionaire Weihong Liu publicly declared interest in acquiring Hudson’s Bay stores, it wasn’t just a retail story—it was a signal flare in an era where foreign investment increasingly doubles as geopolitical strategy.
The Hudson’s Bay Company, founded in 1670, remains an enduring symbol of Canadian heritage. While its commercial relevance has waned in recent years, its brand is deeply etched into the national identity. That’s precisely why any potential acquisition, particularly by an investor with strong ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), deserves thoughtful, measured scrutiny.
Liu, a prominent figure in Vancouver’s Chinese-Canadian business community, announced her interest in acquiring several Hudson’s Bay stores on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (RedNote), expressing a desire to “make the Bay great again.” Though revitalizing a Canadian retail icon may seem commendable, the timing and context of this bid suggest a broader strategic positioning—one that aligns with the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly nuanced approach to economic diplomacy, especially in countries like Canada that sit at the crossroads of American and Chinese spheres of influence.
This fits a familiar pattern. In recent years, we’ve seen examples of Chinese corporate involvement in Canadian cultural and commercial institutions, such as Huawei’s past sponsorship of Hockey Night in Canada. Even as national security concerns were raised by allies and intelligence agencies, Huawei’s logo remained a visible presence during one of the country’s most cherished broadcasts. These engagements, though often framed as commercially justified, serve another purpose: to normalize Chinese brand and state-linked presence within the fabric of Canadian identity and daily life.
What we may be witnessing is part of a broader PRC strategy to deepen economic and cultural ties with Canada at a time when U.S.-China relations remain strained. As American tariffs on Canadian goods—particularly in aluminum, lumber and dairy—have tested cross-border loyalties, Beijing has positioned itself as an alternative economic partner. Investments into cultural and heritage-linked assets like Hudson’s Bay could be seen as a symbolic extension of this effort to draw Canada further into its orbit of influence, subtly decoupling the country from the gravitational pull of its traditional allies.
From my perspective, as a professional with experience in threat finance, economic subversion and political leveraging, this does not necessarily imply nefarious intent in each case. However, it does demand a conscious awareness of how soft power is exercised through commercial influence, particularly by state-aligned actors. As I continue my research in international business law, I see how investment vehicles, trade deals and brand acquisitions can function as instruments of foreign policy—tools for shaping narratives, building alliances and shifting influence over time.
Canada must neither overreact nor overlook these developments. Open markets and cultural exchange are vital to our prosperity and pluralism. But so too is the responsibility to preserve our sovereignty—not only in the physical sense, but in the cultural and institutional dimensions that shape our national identity.
Strategic investment review processes, cultural asset protections and greater transparency around foreign corporate ownership can help strike this balance. We should be cautious not to allow historically Canadian institutions to become conduits, however unintentionally, for geopolitical leverage.
In a world where power is increasingly exercised through influence rather than force, safeguarding our heritage means understanding who is buying—and why.
Scott McGregor is the managing partner and CEO of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
International2 days ago
Pope Francis Dies on Day after Easter
-
International2 days ago
JD Vance was one of the last people to meet Pope Francis
-
COVID-191 day ago
Nearly Half of “COVID-19 Deaths” Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election21 hours ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
International11 hours ago
New York Times publishes chilling new justification for assisted suicide