From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined  significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power.

According to the Trudeau government’s emissions reduction plan, “putting a price on pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Fair enough, but a reasonable person might wonder why the same politicians who insist a price mechanism (i.e. carbon tax) is the most efficient policy recently announced relatively inefficient measures such “sustainable investment guidelines” and “mandatory climate disclosures” for large private companies.

The government claims that imposing mandatory climate disclosures will “attract more private capital into Canada’s largest corporations and ensure Canadian businesses can continue to effectively compete as the world races towards net-zero.” That is nonsense. How would politicians Ottawa know better than business owners about how their businesses should attract capital? If making climate disclosures were a good way to help businesses attract capital, the businesses that want to attract capital would make such disclosures voluntarily. There would be no need for a government mandate.

The government has not yet launched the regulatory process for the climate disclosures, so we don’t know exactly how onerous it will be, but one thing is for sure—the disclosures will be expensive and unnecessary, imposing useless costs onto businesses and investors without any measurable benefit, further discouraging investment in Canada. Again, if the disclosures were useful and worthwhile to investors, businesses seeking to attract investment would make them voluntarily.

Even the government’s own announcement casts doubt that increasing business investment is the likely outcome of mandatory climate disclosures. While the government says it’s “sending a clear signal to corporate boards and shareholders, at home and around the world, that Canada is their trusted partner for putting private capital to work in the race to net-zero,” most investors are not looking to put private capital to work to combat climate change. Most investors want to put their capital to work to earn a good financial return, after adjusting for the risk of the investment.

This latest announcement should come as no surprise. The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power. Capital per worker in Canada is declining due to weak business investment since 2015, and new capital per-Canadian worker in 2024 is barely half of what it is in the United States.

It’s also fair to ask, in the face of these onerous polices—where are the environmental benefits? The government says its climate disclosures are needed for Canada to progress to net-zero emissions and “uphold the Paris climate target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,” but its net-zero targets are neither feasible nor realistic and the economics literature does not support the 1.5 degrees target.

Finally, when announcing the new climate disclosures, Trudeau Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said they are an important stepping stone to a cleaner economy, which is a “major economic opportunity.” Yet even the Canada Energy Regulator (a federal agency) projects net-zero policies would reduce real GDP per capita, increase inflation of consumer prices and reduce residential space (in other words, reduce living standards).

A major economic opportunity that will increase business investment? Surely not—mandatory climate disclosures will only further reduce our standard of living and impose useless costs onto business and investors, with the sure effect of reducing investment.

From the Fraser Institute

By Philip Cross

One of the most intriguing recent political trends in North America is the growing support for conservative parties among young people. Once a reliable source of overwhelming support for the elections of Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau, a rising share of the youth vote is trending towards candidates such as Donald Trump and Pierre Poilievre. Young people voting for conservative politicians could be dismissed as just a backlash against failed economic policies, but there are indications of a more fundamental shift to embracing at least some conservative values.

Canadian youths now support the Conservatives more than any other party, a development not seen in decades, if ever. According to an Abacus poll, 36 per cent of Canadians between 18 and 29 years old would support the Conservatives versus 27 per cent for the NDP and a paltry 19 per cent for the Liberals. Nor is support for Poilievre’s Conservatives just a backlash from the failing fortunes of youths under the Trudeau regime. An Environics polls found young people in Canada would vote for Trump more than any other age group: 28 per cent of Canadians between 18 and 34 years old prefer Trump versus 13 per cent for those 55 and over and 27 per cent between 35 and 54.

Faced with a health-care system that’s clearly broken in Canada, youths have fewer qualms about involving the private sector than older generations who were raised to believe that publicly-provided health care was a fundamental Canadian value. A recent poll by Leger published in Le Journal de Quebec found that 44 per cent of youths 18 to 34 years old support private delivery of health-care services, the mirror image of the views of people 55 and over who oppose it. Meanwhile, youths in the United States identify as having more conservative views than their parents even more than millennials did 20 years ago, with the largest shift among young men.

Rising support for conservative politicians and initiatives among young people reveals several trends. Most obviously is that many of today’s youths reject the radical woke agenda espoused by a small but vocal minority. When confronted with the reality of an economy that’s not generating the jobs, incomes and housing they desire, these youths prioritize results over ideology, especially immigrant youths who came to Canada for economic reasons. The importance attached to results is driving many youths even to question the usefulness of democracy. In his 2023 book The Fourth Turning Is Here, historian Neil Howe cites polls that one in four young Americans would prefer a dictatorial president unconstrained by Congress while only one in 10 Americans over age 65 agree.

Howe’s analysis is based on the proposition that historical movements move in cyclical ebbs and flows rather than by extrapolating straight lines. This is intuitively easy for me to understand after a career specializing in the study of business cycles. It’s well known that there are regular cycles in financial markets and the economy, partly because long periods of prosperity and bullish financial conditions lull the next generation into under-estimating the risks of a downturn. This complacency inevitably precipitates the sort of risky decisions that trigger a slump. As economist Hyman Minsky wrote, “Success breeds a disregard of the possibility of failure… Stability leads to instability. The more stable things become and the longer they are stable, the more unstable they will be when the crisis hits.”

Cyclical analysis is also useful in understanding political trends instead of just assuming history continues on a linear trajectory. For example, for years it seemed inevitable that support for Quebec separatism would rise inexorably until independence was achieved. Instead, support peaked during the 1995 referendum then steadily evaporated as younger generations had more pressing priorities than independence.

We see the same cyclical phenomenon play out in the political preferences of today’s youths, even if conservatives still represent only a minority and their longer-term commitment to conservative values remains uncertain. Instead of reinforcing the left-wing bias of youths that helped propel Obama and Trudeau to power, youths are reacting against the status quo that ignores their pocket-book concerns. These shifting attitudes of young people could help reshape North America’s political landscape in ways few would have thought possible a decade ago.