Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

With our economy becalmed, Good Ship Canada needs a new captain

Published

7 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Jack M. Mintz

Output has been stagnant for five years now. Canada is ‘as idle as a painted ship upon a painted ocean’

One of my favourite poems is Samuel Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.” It describes a ship driven by storms towards the South Pole. An albatross saves the ship and crew but the Ancient Mariner kills it, an act of cruelty for which he is later punished, including by having to repeat the story to strangers for the rest of his life.

It is the verse “Day after day, day after day,/ We stuck, nor breath nor motion;/ As idle as a painted ship/ Upon a painted ocean” that became one of my favourites. It comes back to me periodically when life seems stalled.

Which is the case with Canada these days. Our economy is at a standstill. Interest rates are up and inflation, though trending down, remains stubbornly high. Real GDP growth these past four quarters (August 2022 to August 2023) was a feeble 0.9 per cent. Any growth we do have is from a policy-driven population expansion of close to three per cent. But per capita GDP actually fell 2.1 per cent over that period, which means Canadians are poorer today than they were a year ago.

And it’s not just this year. Canada has been a “painted ship on a painted ocean” for some time.  From January 2018 to June of this year, our GDP per capita was flat, according to OECD data released this week. Add in July and August and Canada’s per capita real GDP has declined slightly — from $52,300 in January 2018 to $51,900 in August (in 2012 dollars).

With the pandemic and surging inflation after 2020, you might think other countries’ economies are also becalmed. But they aren’t. U.S. per capita real GDP is up 2.4 per cent over the past year and up 9.3 per cent since January 2018, from US$61,500 to US$67,200 (again in 2012 dollars). At today’s exchange rate, Canada’s per capita GDP is now just 56 per cent of America’s — ouch!

Nor is it just the U.S. we’re slipping behind. Compared to our own slight decline in real per capita GDP since 2018, the OECD average is up 5.6 per cent, though there’s considerable variation across countries. For example, resource-rich Australia’s real per capita GDP was up only 4.8 per cent — which was still better than here — but superstar Ireland’s was up fully 31.0 per cent.

Let’s face it: Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s famous 1904 prediction that “For the next 100 years, Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come” seems hollow these days. It is not that we don’t have the potential to shine; it’s that we so often fail to. We do still attract immigrants, but they often leave — as much as 20 per cent of a cohort over 25 years according to the Conference Board. And if salaries here keep falling behind those in the U.S., will we still be able to attract the best and brightest?

Canada has always been a trading nation but exports as a share of GDP have been relatively flat this past decade. The oil and gas sector has been our most important source of export earnings, surpassing even motor vehicles and parts, but since 2015 the Trudeau government has actively discouraged its growth.

We have had our share of innovations over the years but R&D spending has slipped back to the same share of GDP as it was in 1998. It seems the only way for Canada to develop new things is to subsidize them to the hilt with multi-billion grants like the ones given this past year to three different battery manufacturers.

Our health-care system is a shambles, with long waiting lines and not enough doctors and health professionals. One index ranks Canada’s health system as only 32nd best among 166 countries (with Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel ranking highest). We know what the problems are, but we seemingly don’t have the will to fix them.

Our tax system is a mess, with high rates and far too many ineffective incentives. Canada now has one of the highest top personal income tax rates in the world but applies it at much lower incomes than elsewhere, beginning at only twice the average wage. One important driver of U.S. growth was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which bolstered investment by 20 per cent, as shown in important research released last month.

We are a free rider in defence and security spending, at only 1.29 per cent of GDP, well below the minimum two per cent needed to fulfil our NATO obligations. Our financial contribution to modernize NORAD is lacking despite the growing importance of the Arctic to Russia and China. We have contributed little in the way of advanced weaponry or tanks to our allies in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. Europe is desperate for natural gas but instead of buying it from us it is having to import it from Qatar.

While regional tensions have always been a major part of Canadian history, we seem to have lost all sight of nation-building. National infrastructure projects are absent. Provincial trade barriers undermine internal growth but are hard to remove. Alberta, angry with a federal government intent on shackling its energy industry, is ready to pull out of the national social security system. Quebec is drastically hiking tuition fees on students from the rest of Canada who attend its anglophone universities.

To fulfill its remarkable potential, this country cannot remain a painted ship upon a painted ocean. Someone needs to move the ship forward.

Business

Trump, taunts and trade—Canada’s response is a decade out of date

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

Canadian federal politicians are floundering in their responses to Donald Trump’s tariff and annexation threats. Unfortunately, they’re stuck in a 2016 mindset, still thinking Trump is a temporary aberration who should be disdained and ignored by the global community. But a lot has changed. Anyone wanting to understand Trump’s current priorities should spend less time looking at trade statistics and more time understanding the details of the lawfare campaigns against him. Canadian officials who had to look up who Kash Patel is, or who don’t know why Nathan Wade’s girlfriend finds herself in legal jeopardy, will find the next four years bewildering.

Three years ago, Trump was on the ropes. His first term had been derailed by phony accusations of Russian collusion and a Ukrainian quid pro quo. After 2020, the Biden Justice Department and numerous Democrat prosecutors devised implausible legal theories to launch multiple criminal cases against him and people who worked in his administration. In summer 2022, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago and leaked to the press rumours of stolen nuclear codes and theft of government secrets. After Trump announced his candidacy in 2022, he was hit by wave after wave of indictments and civil suits strategically filed in deep blue districts. His legal bills soared while his lawyers past and present battled well-funded disbarment campaigns aimed at making it impossible for him to obtain counsel. He was assessed hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties and faced life in prison if convicted.

This would have broken many men. But when he was mug-shotted in Georgia on Aug. 24, 2023, his scowl signalled he was not giving in. In the 11 months from that day to his fist pump in Butler, Pennsylvania, Trump managed to defeat and discredit the lawfare attacks, assemble and lead a highly effective campaign team, knock Joe Biden off the Democratic ticket, run a series of near daily (and sometimes twice daily) rallies, win over top business leaders in Silicon Valley, open up a commanding lead in the polls and not only survive an assassination attempt but turn it into an image of triumph. On election day, he won the popular vote and carried the White House and both Houses of Congress.

It’s Trump’s world now, and Canadians should understand two things about it. First, he feels no loyalty to domestic and multilateral institutions that have governed the world for the past half century. Most of them opposed him last time and many were actively weaponized against him. In his mind, and in the thinking of his supporters, he didn’t just defeat the Democrats, he defeated the Republican establishment, most of Washington including the intelligence agencies, the entire corporate media, the courts, woke corporations, the United Nations and its derivatives, universities and academic authorities, and any foreign governments in league with the World Economic Forum. And it isn’t paranoia; they all had some role in trying to bring him down. Gaining credibility with the new Trump team will require showing how you have also fought against at least some of these groups.

Second, Trump has earned the right to govern in his own style, including saying whatever he wants. He’s a negotiator who likes trash-talking, so get used to it and learn to decode his messages.

When Trump first threatened tariffs, he linked it to two demands: stop the fentanyl going into the United States from Canada and meet our NATO spending targets. We should have done both long ago. In response, Trudeau should have launched an immediate national action plan on military readiness, border security and crackdowns on fentanyl labs. His failure to do so invited escalation. Which, luckily, only consisted of taunts about annexation. Rather than getting whiny and defensive, the best response (in addition to dealing with the border and defence issues) would have been to troll back by saying that Canada would fight any attempt to bring our people under the jurisdiction of the corrupt U.S. Department of Justice, and we will never form a union with a country that refuses to require every state to mandate photo I.D. to vote and has so many election problems as a result.

As to Trump’s complaints about the U.S. trade deficit with Canada, this is a made-in-Washington problem. The U.S. currently imports $4 trillion in goods and services from the rest of the world but only sells $3 trillion back in exports. Trump looks at that and says we’re ripping them off. But that trillion-dollar difference shows up in the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts as the capital account balance. The rest of the world buys that much in U.S. financial instruments each year, including treasury bills that keep Washington functioning. The U.S. savings rate is not high enough to cover the federal government deficit and all the other domestic borrowing needs. So the Americans look to other countries to cover the difference. Canada’s persistent trade surplus with the U.S. ($108 billion in 2023) partly funds that need. Money that goes to buying financial instruments can’t be spent on goods and services.

So the other response to the annexation taunts should be to remind Trump that all the tariffs in the world won’t shrink the trade deficit as long as Congress needs to borrow so much money each year. Eliminate the budget deficit and the trade deficit will disappear, too. And then there will be less money in D.C. to fund lawfare and corruption. Win-win.

Continue Reading

Business

Trade retaliation might feel good—but it will hurt Canada’s economy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

To state the obvious, president-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose an across-the-board 25 per cent tariff on Canadian exports to the United States has gotten the attention of Canadian policymakers who are considering ways to retaliate.

Reportedly, if Trump makes good on his tariff threat, the federal government may levy retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of American-made goods including orange juice, ceramic products such as sinks and toilets, and some steel products. And NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he wants Canada to block exports of critical minerals such as aluminum, lithium and potash to the United States, saying that if Trump “wants to pick a fight with Canada, we have to make sure it’s clear that it’s going to hurt Americans as well.”

Indeed, the ostensible goal of tariff retaliation is to inflict economic damage on producers and workers in key U.S. jurisdictions while minimizing harm to Canadian consumers of products imported from the U.S. The hope is that there will be sufficient political blowback from Canada’s retaliation that Republican members of Congress will eventually view Trump’s tariffs as an unacceptable risk to their re-election and pressure him to roll them back.

But while Canadians might feel good about tit-for-tat retaliation against Trump’s trade bullying and taunting, it might well make things worse for the Canadian economy. For example, even selective tariffs will increase the cost of living for Canadians as importers of tariffed U.S. goods pass the tax along to domestic consumers. Retaliatory tariffs might also harm productivity growth in Canada by encouraging increased domestic production of goods that are produced relatively inefficiently here at home compared to in the U.S. Make no mistake—once trade protections are put in place, the beneficiaries have a strong vested interest in having the protections maintained indefinitely. While Trump will be gone in four years, tariffs imposed by Ottawa to retaliate against his actions will likely remain in place for longer.

The U.S. president has substantial leeway under existing legislation to implement trade measures such as tariffs. While Trump has several legislative options to impose new tariffs against Canada and Mexico, he’ll likely use the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president power to regulate imports and impose duties in response to an emergency involving any unusual and extraordinary threat to national security, foreign policy or the economy. According to Trump’s rhetoric, the emergency is illegal immigration and drug traffic originating in Canada and Mexico.

However risible Trump’s emergency claim might be when applied to Canada, overturning any action under the IEEPA, or some other enabling legislation, would require a legal challenge. And in fact, because no president has yet used the IEEPA to impose tariffs, the legality of Trump’s actions remains in doubt. In this context, a group of governors sympathetic to Canada’s position (and their own political fortunes) might spearhead a legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs with encouragement and support from the Canadian government.

To be sure, any legal challenge would take time to work its way through the U.S. court system. But it will likely also take time for domestic opposition to Trump’s tariffs to gain sufficient political momentum to effect any change. Indeed, given the current composition of Congress, it’s far from clear that a Team Canada effort to rally broad anti-tariff support among U.S. politicians and business leaders would bear fruit while Trump is in office.

While direct retaliation might be emotionally satisfying to Canadians, it would likely do more economic harm than good. And while a legal challenge will not obviate the immediate economic harm Canada will suffer from Trump’s tariffs, it might help limit the ability of Trump (and any future president) to use trade policy for political leverage in our bilateral relationship. After all, there’s no guarantee that the next president will not be a Trump acolyte.

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X