From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Jay Goldberg 

The Trudeau government’s two-month GST holiday on certain items has been called many things.

Former finance minister Chrystia Freeland resignation letter suggests she thinks it’s a “gimmick.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called it a “tax trick.”

But here’s a more fundamental question: If the government thinks Canadians needs a sales tax holiday on certain items, why are those basics taxed in the first place?

Items like car seats, diapers, and pre-prepared foods are all taxed by the feds. They’re all also subject to the federal government’s sales tax holiday, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says was triggered because Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.

“Our government can’t set prices, but we can give Canadians, and especially working Canadians, more money back in their pocket,” said Trudeau at his GST holiday announcement.

At least Trudeau seems to know it’s bad for governments to set prices. But the government does raise prices by adding sales tax on top of goods Canadians have to buy.

And you don’t need to be a parent to know that car seats and diapers are among the most essential goods on a parent’s shopping list.

Take a car seat. A mid-tier car seat costs around $250. The federal sales tax, which is currently at five per cent, adds $12.50 to the final cost of that car seat.

Parents across the country are no doubt asking why things like car seats and diapers were taxed by the feds in November, will be taxed again by the feds in March, but aren’t being taxed right now.

What justification can the government possibly give to parents on Feb. 16, 2025 – the day this sales tax holiday ends – for once again taxing things like car seats and diapers?

The same goes for pre-prepared meals. Many Canadians buy pre-prepared food at grocery stores to bring to work for lunch or to eat on the go. Why are the ingredients for that pre-prepared meal not taxed but the final meal is? And why take the tax off a grocery store deli sandwich now but not a few months from now?

There’s even more of an argument to be made on this front because many provinces don’t tax a lot of the items that are part of the feds’ sales tax holiday.

Take Ontario as an example.

Canada’s most populous province doesn’t tax things like books, children’s clothing, car seats, and diapers. Some pre-prepared foods aren’t taxed either.

If provinces don’t tax these items, why do the feds?

The Trudeau government took inspiration from the NDP when it comes to the GST break. It ought to also take inspiration from the party’s call to make relief permanent.

Trudeau’s GST announcement came just days after NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh called for the permanent removal of the federal sales tax on items like pre-prepared meals, diapers, and car seats. Singh’s proposal actually went much further, and included ending the GST on home heating, as well as internet and phone bills.

In touting his proposal, Singh argued that “those taxes never should have been there in the first place.”

Singh is right. Essential goods shouldn’t be subject to the GST. Period.

Just days after Singh’s announcement, Trudeau played copycat with one of his own.

But a two-month reprieve pales in comparison to permanent relief.

If the Trudeau government wants to deliver real relief to struggling Canadian families, essential items that most provinces already don’t tax, such as diapers, car seats, and pre-prepared meals, should be permanently exempt from the GST.

Permanent sales tax relief is more than doable. The feds could deliver on it without hiking the deficit by taking a sledgehammer to the more than $40 billion a year they hand out in corporate welfare.

Anything less than a permanent sales tax break simply won’t cut it when it comes to cutting costs for Canadians.

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

In February 2024, the Smith government promised to share a plan to grow the Heritage Fund—Alberta’s long-term resource revenue savings fund—with the public before the end of 2024. But 2025 is upon us, and Albertans are still waiting.

The Lougheed government originally created the Heritage Fund in 1976/77 to save a share of the province’s resource wealth, including oil and gas revenues, for the future. But since its creation, Alberta governments have deposited less than 4 per cent of total resource revenue in the fund.

In other words, for decades successive Alberta governments have missed a golden opportunity. When governments make deposits in the Heritage Fund, they transform onetime (and extremely volatile) resource revenue into a financial asset that can generate more stable earnings over time. Eventually, the government could use annual income from the fund to replace volatile resource revenue in the budget.

Historically, however, rules that would have helped ensure the fund’s growth (for example, a requirement to deposit 30 per cent of resource revenue annually) were “statutory” rather than “constitutional,” which meant Alberta governments could easily disregard, change or eliminate these rules once they were no longer convenient.

And they did. The government changed that 30 per cent requirement to 15 per cent by 1982/83, and after an oil price collapse, eliminated it entirely in 1987/88. Due to a lack of consistent deposits, paired with the real value of the fund eroding over time due to inflation, and nearly all fund earnings being spent, the Heritage Fund is expected to be worth less than $25 billion in 2024/25.

Again, while Premier Smith has promised to grow the fund to between $250 billion to $400 billion by 2050, we’ve yet to see how she plans to do that. Whatever plan the government produces, it should heed lessons from other successful resource revenue savings fund such as Alaska’s Permanent Fund.

The Alaska government created its fund the same year Alberta created the Heritage Fund, but Alaska’s fund is worth roughly US$80 billion (or C$113 billion) today. What has the Alaska government done differently?

First, according to Alaska’s constitution, the state government must deposit 25 per cent of all mineral revenues into the fund each year. This type of “constitutional” rule is much stronger than a “statutory” rule that existed in Alberta. (While Canada does not have separate provincial constitutions, it’s possible to change Canada’s Constitution for province-specific measures.) Second, the Alaska government must set aside a share of the fund’s earnings each year to offset the effects of inflation—in other words, “inflation-proof” the principal of the fund to preserve its real value. And finally, the government must pay a portion of fund earnings to Alaskan citizens in annual dividends.

The logic of the first two rules is simple—the Alaskan government promotes growth in the fund by depositing mineral revenue annually, and inflation-proofing maintains the fund’s purchasing power. But consider the third rule regarding dividends.

The Alaska government created the annual dividend, paid out annually to Alaskans, to create political pressure for future governments to responsibly maintain the fund. Because citizens have an ownership share in the fund, they’re more interested in the state maximizing returns from its resource wealth. This has helped maintain and reinforce robust fiscal rules that make the Permanent Fund successful.

Based on this success, if the Smith government began contributing 25 per cent of resource revenue to the Heritage Fund and inflation-proofed the principal, it could pay each Albertan a total dividend between roughly $600 to $1,100 from 2024/25 to 2026/27, or roughly $2,300 to $4,400 per family of four. And as the fund grows, so would the dividends.

Almost one year ago, the Smith government promised a new plan for the Heritage Fund. When the plan is finally released, it should include a constitutional requirement for consistent contributions and inflation-proofing, and annual dividends for Albertans.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute