Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FRASER INSTITUTE -- Excessively large government usually entails government becoming active in ways that are counterproductive to economic growth

After experimenting with hundreds of billions in new spending initiatives and an array of temporary programs in response to the pandemic, the federal government appears primed to further expand its involvement in the post-COVID economy to “build back better.” However, the size of government in Canada had been increasing well before the pandemic, and based on that experiences, this approach is unlikely to produce its desired results.


 

There are two primary measures to gauge the size of government. The first is per-person spending. In 2020/21, the federal government spent the largest amount of money per person (adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history by a wide margin. Indeed, per-person program spending will reach a projected $17,091 (in real 2021 dollars), which is approximately double the amount spent during the 2009 recession and at the peak of the Second World War.

 

But the rapid increase in spending began well before the pandemic. During Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s last year in office, program spending was budgeted to reach $263.2 billion. This meant per-person spending (again, after adjusting for inflation) would be $8,063 in 2015. However, Prime Minister Trudeau immediately increased spending after winning election in late-2015 and has continued this trend every year since.

 

By 2018, federal per-person spending had grown to $9,061, which was the highest amount in Canadian history up to that point. Per-person spending set a new record again the following year, rising to $9,500. This means the Trudeau government increased real per-person federal government spending by nearly 18 per cent during its first term in office, and before any recession.

 

Another way to measure the size of government is to compare government spending with the size of the Canadian economy. Research demonstrates that the size of government matters for economic growth. Recent data from Fraser Institute senior fellow Livio Di Matteo, for instance, concludes that economic growth is maximized when government spending is between 24 per cent and 32 per cent of the economy.

 

Between 2015 and 2019, the Trudeau government increased federal spending (as a share of the economy) from 14.5 per cent to 16.2 per cent. Once we include government spending by the provinces and local municipalities, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates all government spending reached 41.2 per cent of the Canadian economy in 2019—well above the optimal level.

 

 

Excessively large government usually entails government becoming active in ways that are counterproductive to economic growth. For instance, by redistributing income from certain groups to others, and favouring certain industries and sectors of the economy through corporate welfare and protectionism, the government will likely help slow economic growth.

 

For these reasons, increasing the size of government between 2016 and 2019 did not produce better results for the Canadian economy. Instead, the Trudeau government oversaw weak performance for income growth, labour markets and business investment—which are all critical to economic growth and social progress.

 

Specifically, the average annual growth in GDP per capita (a broad measure of income) was just 0.8 per cent during 2016 to 2019 compared to the 3.7 per cent growth rate experienced during a comparable 1997 to 2000 period under the Chretien government. Moreover, total business investment declined (on average) by 0.2 per cent from 2016 to 2019.

 

Clearly, larger government is not always associated with improved outcomes. The Trudeau government must consider these negative economic consequences before it cultivates an even greater role for itself in coming years with new programs such as national daycare, national pharmacare and expanded infrastructure. 

 

Current projections (which do not include these potential new programs) already indicate federal program spending in 2021 will reach $11,370 per person—or 18.7 per cent of the economy—which is considerably higher than the size of government in 2019, the year before the pandemic.

 

Expanding federal government involvement in the economy post-COVID will impede prosperity for Canadians and their families and slow our economic growth at a time when growth is sorely needed. 

 

That’s not a recipe for success.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...

Stamer: Hope for Forestry Completely Shattered After Another Provincial Review Driven by DRIPA

IMAGE CREDIT:  Provincial Forestry Advisory Council Conservative Critic for Forests Ward Stamer says the final report from the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council confirms the worst fears of forestry workers and communities; instead of addressing the real issues driving mill closures and job losses, the NDP has produced a report that ignores industry realities and doubles down on governance restructuring. Despite years of warnings from forestry workers, contractors, and industry organizations about permitting delays, regulatory costs, fibre access, and the failure of BC Timber Sales, the PFAC report offers no urgency, no timelines, and no concrete action to stop the ongoing decline of the sector. “ This report completely shatters any remaining hope that the government is serious about saving forestry ,” said Stamer.  “ We didn’t need another study to tell us what industry has been saying for years. While mills close and workers lose their livelihoods, the NDP is focused on re...

FORSETH – My question is, ‘How do we decide who is blue enough to be called a Conservative?’

How do we decide who’s blue enough to be a Conservative? AS OF TODAY (Friday January 30 th ), there are now eight individuals who have put their names forward to lead the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Having been involved with BC’s Conservatives since 2010, and having seen MANY ups and downs, having 8 people say “I want to lead the party” is to me, an incredible turn-around from the past. Sadly, however, it seems that our party cannot seem to shake what I, and others, call a purity test of ‘what is a Conservative’. And that seems to have already come to the forefront of the campaign by a couple of candidates. Let me just say as a Conservative Party of BC member, and as someone active in the party, that frustrates me to no end. Conservatives, more than any other political philosophy or belief, at least to me, seems to have the widest and broadest spectrum of ideals.   For the most part, they are anchored by these central thoughts --- smaller and less intru...

Labels

Show more