Connect with us

Economy

Prime minister and premier combine to reduce living standards in B.C.

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss

In B.C., the Eby government is following the prime minister’s lead. After nearly two decades of spending restraint  (1999/00 to 2016/17), the province has experienced an explosion in government spending. Program spending will increase from $46.1 billion in 2016-17 to a projected $85.3 billion this year, a nominal increase of more than 85 per cent.

Recently, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier David Eby had a tête-à-tête and vowed to always “work together on important issues.” While they belong to two different political parties, their visions rely on a larger role for government, which includes more spending, regulation, borrowing and higher taxes. Unsurprisingly, this economic strategy hasn’t worked and has instead led to stagnant living standards in British Columbia and across Canada.

Under the NDP, British Columbians have seen their incomes completely stagnate. B.C.’s per-person GDP, a broad measure of living standards, is expected to be lower this year than in 2018, and decline by an average annual rate of 0.9 per cent from 2022 to 2024—the third biggest drop among the provinces during this period.

This represents a marked departure from the economic results under the previous government. From 2001 to 2017, per-person GDP grew (on average) by 1.4 per cent. And the average British Columbian’s income increased by 27 per cent over these 16 years.

The decline in living standards is also occurring nationally. Canada’s per-person GDP was lower at the end of 2023  than it was in 2014.

Why?

Since first elected in 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau has greatly expanded the federal government’s role in the Canadian economy. Federal program spending (total spending excluding debt interest costs) will increase from $256.2 billion in the final full year of the Harper government to a projected $483.6 billion in 2024-25, an increase of nearly 90 per cent over a decade. The government has financed this spending surge through tax increases and borrowing.

Specifically, the Trudeau government in 2016 raised the top personal income tax rate (which applies to many entrepreneurs and businessowners) and also opaquely increased taxes on middle-income Canadians by eliminating several tax credits (as a result, 86 per cent of middle-income families now pay higher taxes). Federal debt has spiked considerably to finance the government’s insatiable appetite for spending, reaching nearly $2.1 trillion this year, almost double the level in 2014-15.

In B.C., the Eby government is following the prime minister’s lead. After nearly two decades of spending restraint  (1999/00 to 2016/17), the province has experienced an explosion in government spending. Program spending will increase from $46.1 billion in 2016-17 to a projected $85.3 billion this year, a nominal increase of more than 85 per cent.

With Premier Eby’s plan to ramp up spending further in the next few years and incur substantial deficits, B.C.’s net government debt is projected to reach a whopping $128.8 billion by 2026/27—a 227 per cent increase since 2016-17.

The B.C. NDP has also raised one tax after another to feed its appetite for spending. The government hiked personal income tax rates from 14.7 per cent to 16.8 per cent on income between roughly $181,000 and $253,000, and introduced a new top tax rate of 20.5 per cent for top-income earners. And raised the business tax rate from 11.0 to 12.0 per cent in 2018, deterring badly needed investment in the province.

Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Eby are pursuing the same policies and achieving the same miserable economic results. Simply put, the Trudeau-Eby zero economic growth alliance has reduced the living standards of British Columbians and Canadians.

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

Trump: China’s tariffs to “come down substantially” after negotiations with Xi

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump said the 145% tariff rate on Chinese imports will drop significantly once a deal is struck with Chinese President Xi Jinping, expressing confidence that a new agreement is on the horizon.

Key Details:

  • Trump said the current 145% tariff rate on China “won’t be anywhere near that high” after negotiations.
  • He pointed to his relationship with Xi Jinping as a reason for optimism.
  • The White House said it is preparing the groundwork for a deal, and Treasury officials expect a “de-escalation” of the trade war.

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday told reporters that the steep tariff rate currently imposed on Chinese imports will come down substantially after his administration finalizes a new trade deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping. While the current level stands at 145%, Trump made clear that number was temporary and would be adjusted following talks with Beijing.

“145 percent is very high. It won’t be that high, it’s not going to be that high … it won’t be anywhere near that high,” Trump said from the Oval Office, signaling a shift once a bilateral agreement is reached. “It will come down substantially, but it won’t be zero.”

The tariff, which Trump previously described as “reciprocal,” was maintained on China even after he delayed similar penalties on other trading partners. Those were cut to 10% and paused for 90 days to allow room for further negotiation.

“We’re going to be very nice. They’re going to be very nice, and we’ll see what happens. But ultimately, they have to make a deal because otherwise they’re not going to be able to deal in the United States,” Trump said, reinforcing his view that the U.S. holds the leverage.

Trump’s remarks come as markets remain wary of ongoing trade tensions, though the White House signaled progress, saying it is “setting the stage for a deal with China.” The president cited his personal rapport with Xi Jinping as a key factor in his confidence that an agreement can be reached.

“China was taking us for a ride, and it’s not going to happen,” Trump said. “They would make billions a year off us and build up their military with our money. That’s over. But we’ll still be good to China, and I think we’ll work together.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said Tuesday that he expects a cooling of trade hostilities between the two nations, according to several reports from a private meeting with investors.

As the 90-day pause on other reciprocal tariffs nears its end, Trump emphasized that his team is prepared to finalize deals quickly. “We’ve been in talks with many, many world leaders,” he said, expressing confidence that talks will “go pretty quickly.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt added that the administration has received 18 formal proposals from other countries engaged in trade negotiations, another sign that momentum is building behind Trump’s broader push to restructure global trade in favor of American workers and businesses.

(Li Xueren/Xinhua via AP)

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Next federal government should end corporate welfare for forced EV transition

Published on

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.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X