Connect with us

Business

Federal government should stay in its lane

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

There’s been more talk this year than normal about the need for governments, particularly Ottawa, to “stay in their own lane.” But what does this actually mean when it comes to the practical taxing, spending and regulating done by provincial and federal governments?

The rules of the road, so to speak, are laid out in sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Constitution. As noted economist Jack Mintz recently explained, the federal government was allocated responsibility for areas of national priority such as defence and foreign relations, criminal law, and national industries such as transportation, communication and financial institutions. The provinces, on the other hand, were allotted responsibilities deemed to be closer to the people such as health care, education, social services and municipalities.

Simply put, the principle of staying in one’s lane means the federal and provincial governments respect one another’s areas of responsibility and work collaboratively when there are joint interests and/or overlapping responsibilities such as environmental issues.

The experience of the mid-1990s through to roughly 2015 shows the tangible benefits of having each level of government focus on their areas of responsibility. Recall that the Liberal Chrétien government fundamentally removed itself from several areas of provincial jurisdiction, particularly welfare and social services, in its historic 1995 budget.

But the election of the Trudeau government in 2015 represented a marked change in approach. The tax and spending policies of the Trudeau government, which broke a 20-year consensus, favoured ever-increasing spending, higher taxes and much higher levels of borrowing. Federal spending (excluding interest payments on debt) has increased from $273.6 billion in 2015-16 when Trudeau first took office to an expected $483.6 billion this year, an increase of 76.7 per cent.

Federal taxes on most Canadians, including the middle class, have also increased despite the Trudeau government promising lower taxes. And despite the tax increases, borrowing has also increased. Consequently, the national debt has ballooned from $1.1 trillion when Trudeau took office to an estimated $2.1 trillion this year.

Despite these massive spending increases, there are serious questions about core areas of federal responsibility. Consider, for example, the major problems with Canada’s defence spending.

Canada has been called out by both NATO officials and our counterparts within NATO for failing to meet our commitments. As a NATO country, Canada is committed to spend 2 per cent of the value of our economy (GDP) annually on defence. The latest estimate is that Canada will spend 1.4 per cent of GDP on defence and we’re the only country without a plan to reach the target by 2030. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently estimated that to reach our NATO commitment, defence spending would have to increase by $21.3 billion in 2029-30, which given the state of federal finances would entail much higher borrowing and/or higher taxes.

So, while the Trudeau government has increased federal spending markedly, it has not spent those funds on core areas of federal responsibility. Instead, Trudeau’s Ottawa has increasingly involved itself in provincial areas of responsibility. Consider three new national initiatives that are all squarely provincial areas of responsibility: pharmacare, $10-a-day daycare and dental care.

And the amounts involved in these programs are not incidental. In Budget 2021, the Trudeau government announced $27.2 billion over five years for the new $10-a-day daycare initiative, Budget 2023 committed $13.0 billion for the dental benefit over five years, and Budget 2024 included a first step towards national pharmacare with spending of $1.5 billion over five years to cover most contraceptives and some diabetes medications.

So, while the Trudeau government has deprioritized core areas of federal responsibility such as defence, it has increasingly intruded on areas of provincial responsibility.

Canada works best when provincial and federal governments recognize and adhere to their roles within Confederation as was more the norm for more than two decades. The Trudeau government’s intrusion into provincial jurisdiction has increased tensions with the provinces, likely created unsustainable new programs that will ultimately put enormous financial pressure on the provinces, and led to a less well-functioning federal government. Staying in one’s lane makes sense for both driving and political governance.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Beef is becoming a luxury item in Canada

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Sylvain Charlebois

Canadian beef prices have surged due to a shrinking cattle herd, high transportation costs, and potential market collusion

With summer weather settling in, Canadians are returning to a familiar ritual—ring up the barbecue. But as they approach the meat counter, many are faced with shockingly high prices. This year, the meat aisle has become a case study in supply-side economics and market dysfunction, leaving
consumers to wonder how this all came to be.

Since January, according to Statistics Canada, beef prices have surged dramatically. Striploin is up 34.2 per cent, top sirloin 33.7 per cent, and rib cuts nearly 12 per cent. Pork rib cuts and chicken breasts have each risen 5.9 per cent, while even meatless burger patties are 6.8 per cent more
expensive. Beef has led the way in these increases, and its dominance in the price hikes is striking. What’s particularly concerning is that it’s not just one cut of beef—virtually every option has seen a dramatic jump, putting pressure on Canadian consumers who were already grappling with rising food costs.

The cause behind these increases lies in Canada’s shrinking beef cow inventory, now at just 3.38 million head—the lowest since 1989. This represents a 1.2 per cent drop from last year, but it signals much more than a cyclical decline. Many cattle producers, facing an increasingly volatile market, are choosing to exit the industry while prices are favourable. Others are opting to reinvest in less risky sectors or even shift entirely to crop production, leaving the beef industry in a precarious state. In short, Canada’s beef industry is retreating, and with that retreat comes rising prices, fewer available cattle, and growing uncertainty.

South of the border, the U.S. is seeing a similar trend, but far less severe. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the
American beef cow herd declined by just 0.5 per cent to 27.9 million head. This relatively modest drop, coupled with less disruption in their production practices, has resulted in more stable prices.

Over the past year, U.S. boneless sirloin steak rose 5.7 per cent, compared to a staggering 22 per cent in Canada. Ground beef saw a 10.8 per cent increase in the U.S., but 23 per cent in Canada. The price difference between the two countries is stark, and Canadians are feeling the inflationary pressure much more acutely.

There are several factors contributing to the price hikes: Canada’s vast geography, high transportation costs, a limited number of federally licensed beef processors, carbon pricing, and higher labour costs. Carbon pricing, in particular, has added a burden to sectors like beef production, where transportation costs are high. Regulations and logistical inefficiencies add to the costs, driving up prices for retailers and, ultimately, consumers.

This combination of factors is having a compounding effect on the price of beef, making it increasingly out of reach for many.

But there’s another possibility we can’t ignore: potential collusion within the industry. In Canada, a small number of large processors control much of the beef supply, which gives them significant influence over prices. The U.S. government has taken strong action against price-fixing among major meat packers like JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill, and National Beef, leading to multimillion-dollar settlements. In Canada, however, the Competition Bureau has remained largely silent on similar concerns, allowing the possibility of price-fixing to persist unchecked. Perhaps it’s time for Canada to follow the U.S. lead and ensure the beef industry is held accountable for its actions.

The consequences of these rising costs are already evident. According to IBISWorld, Canadian per capita beef consumption fell by 7.1 per cent in 2023 and is expected to drop another 2.1 per cent in 2024. This isn’t merely a shift in dietary preferences—this is a structural change in consumer behaviour. Beef is becoming increasingly viewed as a luxury item, with many budget-conscious households turning to ground beef as a more affordable option. For many Canadians, beef is no longer a staple food but rather an occasional indulgence, reserved for special occasions or holiday meals.

This shift is unfortunate. Beef remains one of the most natural, sustainable sources of protein available to Canadians. Ranchers and processors have made significant strides in improving environmental stewardship, animal welfare, and food safety, often without recognition. Beef is not only nutritionally dense but also supports rural economies and provides a level of traceability few other protein sources can offer.

For many Canadian families, a summer steak on the grill is becoming more of a splurge than a staple. While Canadians will continue to enjoy beef, the frequency and volume of consumption will likely diminish.

Barbecue season hasn’t disappeared, but for many, it’s starting to look a little different: more sausages, more chicken, and fewer striploins. A shame, really, for a product that offers so much more than just taste.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Banks

Liberal border bill could usher in cashless economy by outlawing cash payments

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Bill C-2 has raised concerns from legal organizations that warn it could lead to a cashless economy in Canada by banning cash payments over $10,000.

The Liberals’ proposed border legislation may quietly usher in a cashless economy by banning cash payments.

On June 3, the Liberal Party introduced Bill C-2 to strengthen border security and outlaw cash payments over $10,000. Legal organizations have since warned that this is the first step to a cashless economy and digital ID system in Canada.

“Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more,” the legislation proposes.

While the bill purports to strengthen border security and restore Canada-U.S. relations, many have warned that government regulation of cash payments is a slippery slope.

In a June 4 X post, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) warned that “If Bill C-2 passes, it will become a Criminal Code offence for businesses, professionals, and charities to accept cash donations, deposits, or payments of $10,000 or more. Even if the $10,000 payment or donation is broken down into several smaller cash transactions, it will still be a crime for a business or charity to receive it.”

The JCCF pointed out that while cash payments of $10,000 are not common for Canadians, the government can easily reduce “the legal amount to $5,000, then $1,000, then $100, and eventually nothing.”

“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny and totalitarianism,” the organization warned. “Cash gives citizens privacy, autonomy, and freedom from surveillance by government and by banks, credit card companies, and other corporations.”

“If we cherish our privacy, we need to defend our freedom to choose cash, in the amount of our choosing,” it continued. “This includes, for example, our right to pay $10,000 cash for a car, or to donate $10,000 (or more) to a charity.”

“Law enforcement already has the tools to fight crime,” JCCF declared. “Perhaps they need a bigger budget to hire more people, or perhaps they need to use existing tools more effectively. In a free society, violating our right to use cash is not the answer.”

In winter 2022, the Liberal government, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, froze the bank accounts of those who donated to the Freedom Convoy, which featured thousands of Canadians camping in front of Parliament to protest COVID mandates.

Similarly, Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney’s move to restrict Canadians is hardly surprising considering his close ties to the World Economic Forum and push for digital currency.

In a 2021 article, the National Post noted that “since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the ‘Great Reset,’ or the ‘Green New Deal,’ or ‘Building Back Better.’

“Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty,” the outlet continued.

In light of Carney’s new leadership over Canadians, many are sounding alarm over his distinctly anti-freedom ideas.

Carney, whose ties to globalist groups have had Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre call him the World Economic Forum’s “golden boy”. He has also previously endorsed the carbon tax and even criticized Trudeau when the tax was  exempted from home heating oil in an effort to reduce costs for some Canadians.

Carney, who as reported by LifeSiteNews, has admitted he is an “elitist” and a “globalist.” Just recently, he criticized U.S. President Donald Trump for targeting woke ideology and has vowed to promote “inclusiveness” in Canada.

Carney also said that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan.

Continue Reading

Trending

X