Business
Prime minister rejects ‘austerity’ despite massive debt and dismal economic growth
From the Fraser Institute
By Grady Munro and Jake Fuss
Adjusting for population growth and inflation, the Trudeau government has recorded the five-highest years (2018-2022) of per-person spending in Canadian history, and is on track to record a sixth.
This week, at the Liberal cabinet retreat in Montreal, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters he’s against “austerity and cuts” and believes his government must “invest” to “create greater growth” in the economy, thus dashing hopes for any meaningful spending restraint in the upcoming federal budget.
But evidence shows the government’s current plan has not helped the economy despite the prime minister’s claims. Rather than double-down on a failed strategy of higher spending, taxes and borrowing, the Trudeau government should change direction immediately.
Let’s look at the evidence.
According to its latest fiscal projections, the federal government will spend $449.8 billion on programs and services in 2023/24—up 75.5 per cent (nominally) from 2014/15 when program spending was $256.2 billion. Adjusting for population growth and inflation, the Trudeau government has recorded the five-highest years (2018-2022) of per-person spending in Canadian history, and is on track to record a sixth. But have we seen a corresponding increase in economic growth?
No, in fact Canada has experienced an economic growth crisis for the last decade.
One of the best ways to measure economic growth is to use inflation-adjusted per-person gross domestic product (GDP), which provides the broadest measure of living standards for Canadians. According to a recent study by Philip Cross, former chief economic analyst at Statistics Canada, between 2013 and 2022 Canada’s per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) grew at its slowest pace since the 1930s. Moreover, economic growth in Canada has fallen well behind growth in the United States, showing that Canada’s stagnation was not inevitable.
And there’s little room for optimism. According to OECD estimates, Canada will have the slowest growth in per-person GDP among advanced economies from 2020 to 2030 and 2030 to 2060.
Simply put, the data show that increased government spending has not produced greater prosperity for Canadians.
Indeed, rather than “invest” in Canadians, the Trudeau government has burdened Canadians with mountains of debt. The Trudeau government has yet to balance the budget, despite campaign promises, and this year will likely run its ninth consecutive deficit. Nearly a decade of uninterrupted deficits has increased the federal debt by $941.9 billion. This not only imposes costs on Canadians today—primarily through higher debt interest costs—but also increases the tax burden on future generations who are ultimately responsible for paying off today’s debt.
If the Trudeau government needs a blueprint for reform, it can find it within its own party, which has a history of spending reductions and strong economic growth.
During the mid-1990s, the Chrétien Liberal government introduced meaningful spending reductions that ultimately balanced the federal budget in 1997, marking the first federal budget surplus in nearly 30 years. In addition to spending reductions, the Chrétien government also introduced tax relief and other growth-enhancing policies. And the results were immediate.
Between 1997 and 2007, Canada’s average annual increase in per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) was 2.2 per cent, which was higher than the OECD average. During the same time period, Canada’s average rate of employment growth was nearly double the average in the OECD and the United States. And the national poverty rate fell from 7.8 per cent in 1996 to 4.9 per cent in 2004. Overall, the Canadian economy outperformed many other industrialized economies during this time and living standards improved for Canadians—despite reductions in government spending.
Despite claims by Prime Minister Trudeau, less government spending (not more) is necessary to help reverse the trend of stagnant economic growth. The Trudeau government should recognize that the current plan isn’t working and change course in its upcoming budget.
Authors:
Business
The Snack Attack: Are Major Food Brands Making Kids Addicted?
By Christof Plothe, DO
A lawsuit has just dropped that could send shockwaves through your pantry.
Eleven major food manufacturers including Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, and Nestlé are accused of engineering their ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to be downright addictive, while marketing these tasty ‘treats’ directly to our kids. Sounds like a plot twist right out of a movie, doesn’t it?
The drama unfolds in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, where a brave plaintiff, Bryce Martinez, claims that his exposure to these sugary, salty foods led him to develop type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at the tender age of 16. As his complaint states, “Due to Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff regularly, frequently, and chronically ingested their UPF, which caused him to contract Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.”
The lawsuit draws comparisons to the notorious marketing tactics of ‘big tobacco’. Public health expert Carlos Monteiro, who coined the term UPF, is sounding the alarm, saying that food companies are using the same underhanded strategies to hook kids on their products. With the food industry reportedly spending a staggering $2 billion each year to market these processed foods to children, it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow.
The lawsuit, which includes Conagra Brands among the accused, alleges that these companies are not just selling food, they are selling addiction. Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, and others were approached for comment but have remained tight-lipped about the allegations.
A plateful of addictive substances
We’re talking about a food landscape in the U.S. where 73% of what’s on the plate is ultra-processed. This isn’t just a health concern for adults; studies show that a whopping 67% of American children’s diets are made up of these foods, with many displaying signs of addiction.
As this legal battle heats up, we might just witness a seismic shift in how these companies advertise their products. Could we see warning labels on our favorite snacks? Or maybe a complete overhaul of their marketing strategies? Only time will tell!
Stay tuned, because this is one story that’s just getting started and with the changes in the US health politics that seem to be in the pipeline, we see a “better way” for the health of our children.
Sources:
https://www.
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/
If you find value in our work and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.
Business
Solving the Housing Affordability Crisis With This One Cool Trick
As you’ll soon see, local and provincial governments – if they were so inspired – could drop the purchase price on new homes by 20 percent. Before breakfast.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It’s all about taxes and fees. This post will focus mostly on taxes and fees as they apply to new construction of relatively expensive detached homes. But the basic ideas will apply to all homes – and will also impact rentals.
Here are some estimated numbers to chew on. Scenarios based on varying permutations and combinations will produce different results, but I think this example will be a good illustration.
Let’s say that a developer purchases a single residential plot in Toronto for $1.4 million. In mature midtown neighborhoods, that figure is hardly uncommon. The plan is to build an attractive single family home and then sell it on the retail market.
Here are some estimates of the costs our developer will currently face:
- Construction costs on a 2,000 sq. ft. home (@ $350/sq. ft.): $700,000
- Land transfer taxes on the initial land purchase: $35,000
- Development fees: $100,000
- Permits and zoning/site approvals: $40,000
Total direct development costs would therefore come to $875,000. Of course, that’s besides the $1.4 million purchase price for the land which would bring our new running total to $2,275,000.
We’ll also need to account for the costs of regulatory delays. Waiting for permits, approvals, and environmental assessments can easily add a full year to the project. Since nothing can begin until the developer has legal title to the property, he’ll likely be paying interest for a mortgage representing 80 percent of the purchase price (i.e., $1,120,000). Even assuming a reasonable rate, that’ll add another $60,000 in carrying charges. Which will bring us to $2,335,000.
And don’t forget lawyers and consultants. They also have families to feed! Professional guidance for navigating through the permit and assessment system can easily cost a developer another $25,000.
That’s not an exhaustive list, by the way. To keep things simple, I left out Toronto’s Parkland Dedication Fee which, for residential developments, can range from 5 to 20 percent of the land value. And the Education Development Charges imposed by school boards was also ignored.
So assuming everything goes smoothly – something that’s far from given – that’ll give us a total development cost of $2,360,000. To ensure compensation for the time, work, investments, and considerable risks involved, our developer is unlikely to want to sell the home for less than $2,700,000.
But various governments are still holding their hands out. When the buyers sign an agreement of purchase, they’ll be on the hook for land transfer taxes and – since it’s a new house – HST. Ontario and Toronto will want about four percent ($108,000) for the transfer (even though they both just cashed in on the very same transfer tax for the very same land at the start of the process). And, even taking into account both the federal and Ontario rebates, getting the keys to the front door will require handing over another $327,000 for HST.
Here’s how development fee schedules currently look in Toronto:
And here’s a breakdown of the land transfer taxes assessed against anyone buying land:
In our hypothetical case, those fees would give us a total, all-in purchase price of $3,135,000. How much of that is due to government involvement (including associated legal and interest fees)? Around $695,000.
That’s $695,000 our buyers will pay – over and above the actual costs of land and construction. Or, in other words, a 22 percent markup.
Let’s put this a different way. If the cost of the median home in Canada dropped by 22 percent, then around 1.5 million extra Canadian households could enter the market. Congratulations, you’ve solved the housing affordability crisis. (Although supply problems will still need some serious work.)
Now it’s probably not realistic to expect politicians in places like the Ontario Legislature and Toronto City Council to give up that kind of income. But just lowering their intake by 50 or even 25 percent – and reducing the costs and pain points of acquiring permits – could make a serious difference. Not only would it lower home sale prices, but it would lower the barriers to entry for new home construction.
Just what were all those taxes worth to governments? Let’s begin with the City of Toronto. Their 2023 Financial Report tells us that land transfer taxes generated $944 million, permits and zoning applications delivered $137 million, and development fees accounted for $1.45 billion. Total city revenues in 2023 were $16.325 billion.
We’re told that all that money was spent on:
- Roads and transit systems
- Water and wastewater systems
- Fire and emergency services
- Parks and recreation facilities
- Libraries
Well, we do need those things right? We can’t expect the city to just eliminate fire and emergency services.
Wait. Hang on. I seem to recall being told that revenue from my property tax bill covered those services. Yes! My property tax did fund those things. Not 100 percent of those things, but a lot.
Specifically, Toronto property tax revenues cover 65 percent of the municipal costs for roads and transit systems, 85 percent of fire and emergency services, 75 percent of parks and recreation facilities, and 95 percent of library costs (even though very few people use public libraries any more).
Granted, property tax revenue covered only five percent of water and wastewater systems, but that’s because another 40 percent came from user fees (i.e., utility bills).
So revenues from land transfer taxes, developer fees, and permitting aren’t an insignificant portion of City income, but they’re hardly the linchpin propping the whole thing up either. City Council could respond to losing that income by increasing property taxes. Or – and I’m just throwing around random ideas here – they could reduce their spending.
Now what about the province? I couldn’t get a good sense of how much of their HST revenue comes specifically from new home sales, but Ontario’s 2023–24 consolidated financial statements tell us that provincial land transfer taxes brought in $3.538 billion. That would be around 1.7% of total government revenues. Again, a bit more than a rounding error.
Politics is about finding balances through trade offs. Sure, maintaining program spending while minimizing deficits is an ongoing and real challenge for governments. On the other hand, they all say they’re concerned about the housing crisis. Foregoing just one to five percent of revenues should, given the political payoffs and bragging rights that could follow, probably be an easy pill to swallow.
A few weeks ago I reached out to the City of Toronto Housing Secretariat and the Province of Ontario’s Municipal Affairs and Housing for their thoughts. I received no response.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
-
Artificial Intelligence23 hours ago
Canadian Court Upholds Ban on Clearview AI’s Unconsented Facial Data Collection
-
Alberta2 days ago
Province Releases Blockbuster Review of COVID-19 Pandemic Response
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
Trump Takes Over and Implements Communication Freeze at HHS, CDC, and NIH
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Jaw-Dropping Number Of Inmates In Women’s Prisons Are Actually Men
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Immigration actions, deportation flights begin
-
COVID-191 day ago
Emails obtained by CHD reveal government’s failure to monitor COVID vaccine injury reports
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Hegseth Confirmed As Secretary of Defense After Chaotic Process
-
National19 hours ago
Doug Ford is calling an election to save his political skin and Justin Trudeau’s government