Tag Archives: C.D. Howe Institute

Job Creation Falls Behind Rapid Population Growth

  • In 2024, Canada’s labour market showed modest growth, with job creation continuing but lagging rapid population growth. This led to an increase in the unemployment rate, reflecting a mismatch between labour force expansion and job creation rather than a decline in sector-specific labour shortages.
  • Ongoing challenges persist, such as declining labour productivity, sector-specific labour shortages, underemployment, demographic shifts and disparities, and regional imbalances.
  • Our international comparisons show that Canada typically ranks at or below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average in terms of labour force participation and employment rates for certain population segments. This is largely due to weaker performance in specific regions, such as the Atlantic provinces, and pension policies that incentivize early retirement.
  • This labour market review emphasizes the need for tailored policies to improve labour market outcomes for seniors and immigrants. Recommendations include gradually increasing the retirement age, offering high-quality training support, and easing labour mobility barriers.

Introduction

The labour market is where economic changes most directly affect working-age Canadians, influencing their job opportunities and income. The supply of labour also determines the availability of Canadians’ skills and knowledge to employers who combine them with capital to produce goods and services that drive our national income and its distribution among income classes. Therefore, the labour market is one of the most important components of Canada’s – or any – economy.

In 2024, Canada’s labour market saw moderate growth, with employment rising to 20.7 million jobs. However, the employment rate declined to 61.3 percent, down from 62.2 percent in 2023, and remains below the pre-pandemic level of 62.3 percent in 2019. While over 1.7 million employed persons have been added since 2019, employment growth has lagged behind population growth, partly due to an aging population, despite high levels of immigration.1 The unemployment rate also increased, reflecting a gap between job creation and labour force expansion, partly due to limited absorptive capacity to keep pace with population growth.

Job vacancies have decreased since mid-2022, but over half a million positions remained unfilled during the third quarter of 2024 (12 percent higher than the pre-pandemic level). Of these vacancies, the majority were full-time (432,810 positions), with more than 31 percent remaining vacant for the long term – persisting for over 90 days. Despite high full-time vacancies, more than half a million workers were underemployed in 2024, seeking full-time work while employed part-time, indicating mismatches between the skills needed by employers and the skills offered by job seekers. Among sectors facing labour shortages, factors such as better relative wages and working conditions appear to be helping, particularly in industries like construction. Healthcare, on the other hand, may benefit from raising wages and reducing training costs to better attract and retain workers.

Further, Canada faces declining labour productivity, which can be attributed to factors such as stagnant capital investment and automation, high reliance on temporary foreign workers to fill low-paying positions, underemployment (including immigrants’ overqualification), a growing public sector with lower productivity, and shifts in industry composition.

This inaugural C.D. Howe Institute labour market review highlights major differences in the labour market across provinces and sectors and among socio-economic groups. It shows that labour force participation and employment of older workers and recent immigrants still have room for improvement.

Canada needs targeted workforce development policies to improve labour market participation and outcomes for diverse population groups and encourage a longer working life (Holland 2018 and 2019). Our recommendations are to:

  • Gradually raise the normal retirement age from 65 to 67 and delay pension access.
  • Support older workers with flexible work, part-time options, and self-employment, especially in the Atlantic provinces.
  • Invest in high-quality training programs for underrepresented groups, focusing on digital skills and job search strategies.
  • Streamline credential recognition and licensure for skilled immigrants and ease labour mobility in regulated occupations while maintaining the quality of professional services.
  • Enhance settlement strategies for immigrants, including workplace-focused language training.

Businesses should integrate automation and artificial intelligence (AI) to boost productivity while improving retention and encouraging later retirement by offering training2 and flexible scheduling (Mahboubi and Zhang 2023).Finally, better informing Canadians about learning and training opportunities and addressing financial and non-financial barriers would improve their training participation rates and empower them to acquire the skills needed in a changing labour market.

Overview of Canada’s Labour Market

Canada’s labour market has undergone major changes over time, influenced by factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, globalization, technological progress, and demographic shifts. These forces have affected the functioning of the labour market, with demographic changes playing a particularly important role. This section reviews key indicators (i.e., labour-force participation, employment and unemployment) and highlights the major trends and disparities in provincial and national labour markets.

The labour force has grown steadily since 1976 but experienced a decline in 2020 due to the pandemic. The lockdowns and public health measures significantly reduced worker participation, especially among women, in the labour market. However, once the restrictions were lifted, workers returned, and the labour force fully recovered. By 2024, Canada had 22.1 million people in the labour force, an increase of about 1.9 million from 2019, mainly driven by the expansionary immigration policy that the country has followed until recently.3 Immigrants accounted for 56 percent of this increase in the labour force, while non-permanent residents made up 32 percent.4

Although the labour force has grown over time, the labour force participation rate (LFPR) has trended downward over the last two decades. This trend is largely driven by an aging population, as participation rates drop sharply after age 54 and continue to decline with age. While the LFPR among prime-aged workers (25-54) reached a record high in 2023, the overall rate remained below pre-pandemic levels and declined further in 2024, reaching 65.5 percent despite high levels of immigration.5 Three factors contributed to this decline compared to pre-pandemic levels: a lower participation rate among youth, a substantial increase in the older population (aged 55 and over) and a decline in the latter group’s participation rate. This decline in older workers’ participation is primarily due to aging, as the proportion of seniors aged 65 and over within the 55-and-over age group increased from 54.8 percent in 2019 to 60 percent in 2024.

The employment rate is more sensitive to economic conditions and fluctuates with cyclical changes in the unemployment rate. It is also influenced by factors such as government policies on education, training, and income support, as well as employers’ investments in skill development and their effectiveness in matching people to jobs. Despite some volatility during economic booms and recessions, the employment rate trended upward until 2008 but has declined since then, mirroring the impact of an aging population on the participation rate (Figure 1). The pandemic caused a sharp decline in the employment rate, followed by a modest recovery. In 2024, the rate, however, declined again by approximately one percentage point to 61.3 percent, as employment growth (1.9 percent) failed to keep pace with the population growth (3 percent).

Regional disparities in employment persist across Canada. Alberta consistently maintains the highest employment rate, while Newfoundland and Labrador lags. Despite significant improvements since 1976, the Atlantic provinces continue to face challenges with employment. For its part, Ontario’s employment rate – historically the second highest in the country – has been below the national average since 2008. Regional differences in economic development, sectoral specialization patterns, educational attainment, family policy, and demographic characteristics are factors behind these employment disparities. For example, Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick had the highest old-age dependency ratios (OADs) in 2024 at 39 and 37 percent, respectively, while Alberta remains the youngest province with an OAD ratio of less than 23 percent.6

The unemployment rate, a key short-term indicator, tends to rise during economic downturns and fall back during recovery, affecting employment outcomes in the opposite direction (Figure 1). The onset of the pandemic in 2020 led to a temporary surge in the unemployment rate to 9.7 percent – a four-percentage point hike from the previous year. As the economy recovered, the unemployment rate plummeted to a record low of 5.3 percent in 2022. However, by 2024, it had risen to 6.3 percent, a figure that remains relatively low by historical standards but higher than the pre-pandemic rate in 2019.

While employment grew by 1.7 million people between 2019 and 2024, the labour force expanded even faster, increasing by 1.9 million people. This imbalance – where the labour force grew more quickly than employment – pushed the unemployment rate higher, reflecting a loosening labour market and making it more challenging for job seekers to secure employment.

Overall, the labour force and employment in Canada have been expanding due to a surge in immigration. Despite unemployment rates remaining higher than the pre-pandemic level, this primarily reflects the exceptional growth in the labour force rather than a lack of job creation. The labour market continues to adjust to the increase in labour supply through strong job creation.

Looking ahead, several uncertainties and factors could influence unemployment rates. For example, the imposition of trade tariffs by the United States poses a direct risk to export-related jobs. In 2024, 8.8 percent of workers – equivalent to 1.8 million people – were employed in industries dependent on US demand for Canadian exports.7 Sectors most vulnerable to these risks include oil and gas extraction, pipeline transportation, and primary metal manufacturing.

On the other hand, stricter immigration policies that limit the inflow of permanent and non-permanent residents may reduce the growth of the labour force, which could, in turn, place downward pressure on the unemployment rate. However, the ongoing arrival of refugees, which contributes to the growing population of non-permanent residents, could lead to higher unemployment rates, particularly if newcomers face significant challenges integrating into the labour market.

To mitigate the negative impacts of aging on the labour market and address labour needs, it is important to encourage greater participation of underrepresented groups and seniors, ensure new entrants and young workers are equipped with the relevant skills to meet the labour market needs and enhance the productivity of the existing workforce. However, declining labour productivity poses an additional challenge that requires urgent attention.

Trends in Labour Productivity

Labour productivity8 in Canada has generally trended upward until the pandemic, but with a general downward trend in its growth rate. In 2020, average productivity surged to $68.5 per hour worked (in 2017 dollars), mainly driven by compositional changes in employment towards more productive jobs, particularly in the business sector, since most job losses were among low-wage workers. However, this gain proved short-lived; by 2023, productivity fell to $63.6, returning to nearly the same level as in 2019 (Figure 2).

Declining productivity has contributed to a reduction in real GDP per capita, which is a key indicator of Canadians’ living standards. Although Canada’s GDP rose by 6.9 percent (in 2017 dollars) between Q4 2019 and Q4 2023, GDP per capita decreased by 0.2 percent over that period. Since 2020, Canada’s GDP per capita growth has averaged an annual decline of 1.3 percent, compared to a growth rate of 1 percent per year between 2010 and 2019 (Wang 2022). Labour productivity continued to decline in 2024 as real GDP growth fell short of the growth of hours worked. This stands in stark contrast to the robust growth of labour productivity seen in the US during the same period.

Several factors, including human capital stock, skills utilization, overqualification, the concentration of immigrants in low-skilled jobs, limited capital investment, and slow adoption of technology, have likely contributed to recent poor labour productivity trends (Wang 2022; Robson and Bafale 2023, 2024). Notably, the combined influx of immigrants and non-permanent residents has driven the majority of employment growth between 2019 and 2024, accounting for 89 percent of the total increase in employment. Although immigrants and non-permanent residents are more likely than Canadian-born workers to have a university education, many are overqualified and work in jobs that require only a high-school diploma (Mahboubi and Zhang 2024). According to the 2021 census, the overqualification rate among immigrants9 and non-permanent residents was 21 percent and 32.4 percent, respectively, while only 8.8 percent of Canadian-born individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher were overqualified (Schimmele and Hou 2024). With rising immigration, Canada’s productivity will increasingly depend on how effectively it leverages and develops the skills of new immigrants (Rogers 2024).

The recent influx of newcomers can help mitigate the impact of an aging population as they tend to be younger, typically being at their prime working age (Maestas, Mullen and Powell 2023). However, the concentration of immigrants and non-permanent residents in lower-skilled, low-paying sectors and occupations reduces productivity and, consequently, their contribution to GDP per capita. According to Lu and Hou (2023), between 2010 and 2019, non-permanent residents (work permit holders) were increasingly concentrated in several low-paying industries: accommodation and food services, retail trade, and administrative and support, waste management and remediation services.10 Collectively, these industries accounted for 45 percent of all temporary foreign workers in 2019. With the surge of non-permanent residents, one would expect the situation to have worsened in 2023 since the cap for hiring low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2022 increased from 10 percent to 30 percent in seven sectors, including accommodation and food services and to 20 percent for other industries.11 Similarly, Picot and Mehdi (2024) found that immigrants contribute approximately equal amounts of lower-skilled and higher-skilled labour, with 35 percent of those who landed in 2018 or 2019 working in lower-skilled jobs by 2021.

Relying on temporary foreign workers and immigrants to fill lower-skilled, low-paying jobs means that labour becomes a cheaper option than capital, which naturally disincentivizes businesses from investing in productivity-enhancing technology.12 Increases in the supply of labour also discourage business investment in skills upgrading for the existing workforce (Acemoglu and Pischke 1999).

Increases in labour supply without corresponding higher capital investment will also depress productivity. According to Robson and Bafale (2023), a larger labour force resulting from high immigration will not lead to higher living standards if workers are not equipped with better tools to produce and compete. Young and Lalonde (2024) also found that two-thirds of productivity declines since 2021 stem from this population shock.

Technological advancements, particularly digitalization and AI, offer opportunities to boost productivity. Mischke et al. (2024) find that digitalization and other technological advances could add up to 1.5 percentage points to annual productivity growth in advanced economies. Nevertheless, Canada has been slow in capital investment, automation and AI adoption.

The expansion of the public sector also poses challenges. Compared to 2019, public-sector employment increased by 19.6 percent in 2024, while private sector employment only saw an 8.5 percent increase. Consequently, public-sector jobs in 2024 accounted for 21.5 percent of all employment in Canada, up from 19.6 percent in 2019. However, public-sector productivity has lagged the business sector since 2019. In 2023, it was $58.20 per hour worked, 1.5 percent lower than its 2019 level and 1.5 percent below that of the business sector. With a higher share of public employment in the economy, this lower productivity in the public sector reduces overall labour productivity.

Lastly, significant variations in productivity across industries within the business sector shape Canada’s overall performance (Appendix Figure A1). Some industries, such as educational services, experienced notable productivity gains of 25 percent between 2019 and 2023. In contrast, some low-productivity industries faced substantial declines, with that of holding companies decreasing by 60 percent and construction and transportation dropping by 10 percent.13 Labour productivity in industries with the largest employment gains remained unchanged (professional, scientific, and technical services) or declined (public administration) during the same period (Appendix Figure A2). In contrast, agriculture and accommodation and food services witnessed productivity increases, likely due to investments in machinery and automation accompanying employment declines.

Therefore, the industrial distribution of jobs, shifts in industry composition, and demographic changes within industries can greatly affect Canada’s overall productivity. Tackling Canada’s productivity challenges will require substantial capital investment, targeted initiatives in skills development, technological advancements, and industry-specific strategies to promote sustainable economic growth.

Employment by Skill Level

Skill-biased technological changes – innovations that primarily benefit highly skilled workers, such as those proficient in technology, complex problem-solving, and critical thinking – have increased the demand for high-skilled labour in today’s job market. Despite the limitations of that approach, education has generally been used as a proxy for skills. In response to labour market needs, there has been a significant surge in higher education attainment among Canadians over time. The proportion of the population aged 25 and over having a postsecondary certificate, diploma or university degree rose from 37 percent in 1990 to 69 percent in 2024. According to OECD (2024), Canada has the highest postsecondary education attainment rate among core working-age individuals (25-64).

Despite these educational advancements, Canada faces productivity challenges and lags in technological adoption, particularly relative to the United States. One explanation is that although higher levels of education should translate into greater skills – leading to enhanced productivity, employability and adaptability to labour market changes – other factors such as education quality, experience, on-the-job training, capital investment, technological advancement, skill utilization, and age can substantially influence individuals’ skills levels (Mahboubi 2017b and 2019; Robson and Bafale 2023).

Skills and education levels heavily influence labour-market outcomes. For example, labour force participation, including among seniors, increases with educational attainment and those with higher education tend to remain in the labour market longer. This can mitigate some of the negative effects of an aging labour force, as significantly more seniors today possess a formal education above high school compared to decades ago and can take advantage of the ongoing shift from physical work to knowledge-based work.

In parallel with increases in the supply of highly educated labour, there has been a shift in skills requirements among employers.14 Figure 3 shows employment in high-skill-level occupations has seen remarkable growth over the past three decades, increasing by 299 percent from 1987 to 2024. Notably, during the pandemic, employment in high-skill-level roles continued to grow, even as jobs in other skill categories declined. By 2024, high-skill-level occupations accounted for 23 percent of total employment. Despite this growth, medium- and low-skill-level occupations remain predominant, employing approximately 8.1 million and 5.8 million workers, respectively, compared to 4.8 million in high-skill roles. In the last two decades, immigrants and non-permanent residents have increasingly taken both high-skilled and low-skilled jobs. Between 2001 and 2021, they accounted for half of the employment growth in professional and technical skill occupations (Picot and Hou 2024). Over the same period, employment in lower-skilled occupations decreased by half a million. However, more immigrants and non-permanent residents increasingly occupied low-skilled positions, while Canadian-born workers significantly transitioned away from these roles (Picot and Hou 2024). By 2021, immigrants were more concentrated in professional and lower-skilled occupations compared to their Canadian-born counterparts.

In general, the Canadian labour market has performed well since the pandemic, with particularly strong employment growth for high-skill level occupations. As demand for high-skilled labour continues to grow, improving education quality, promoting on-the-job training, and better utilizing the skills of the workforce are essential for maintaining this balance, maximizing the benefits of educational advancements, enhancing productivity and meeting the evolving demands of the labour market.

Imbalances of Labour Supply and Demand

Studying the relationship between unemployment and job vacancies provides insight into labour supply and demand imbalances. It allows us to examine two problems that hinder business growth and slow the economy down: the lack of sufficient employment opportunities for job seekers and the absence of people with the right skills to fill existing jobs.

This relationship is often described by the Beveridge curve, which illustrates how job vacancy rates and unemployment typically move in opposite directions. However, as noted by Blanchard, Domash, and Summers (2022), shifts in this relationship can occur due to factors such as increased labour demand or structural changes in the economy, leading to both higher vacancy rates and higher unemployment simultaneously.

From 2021 to mid-2022, Canada experienced a tight labour market, with an increase in job vacancies alongside declining unemployment. In response, the federal government relaxed several immigration policies to help address these shortages. However, Fortin (2024, 2025) found that a surge in immigration, particularly driven by temporary immigrants, may aggravate job vacancy rates in the overall economy, as observed in Canada between 2019 and 2023. While immigration can initially alleviate skilled labour shortages, it can also intensify shortages in the broader economy due to increased demand from newcomers for goods and services.

In 2024, the labour market transitioned from a state of tightness to a slackening one. In the third quarter of 2024, job vacancies in Canada totalled more than 572,000,15 marking a 12 percent increase compared to the pre-pandemic level in Q4 2019. With 1.5 million unemployed people in the labour market, there were more than two job seekers for every vacant position during that quarter. However, the provincial situations varied (Figure 4). For example, while British Columbia experienced a relatively tighter labour market, with fewer than two unemployed persons for each vacant position, there were more than four unemployed persons available per vacant position in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, the long-term vacancy rate – the share of openings that remained vacant for 90 days or more in total vacancies – in that province was 36.9 percent, which was four percentage points higher than the British Columbia rate in the third quarter of 2024. This indicates both limited employment opportunities for those unemployed and a mismatch between existing skills and those demanded by employers.

Imbalances between labour supply and demand in Canada also exist at the industry level (Figure 5). For example, while the healthcare sector faces severe labour shortages, the information, culture and recreation industry has the highest unemployment-to-vacancy ratio, indicating an excess labour supply. One interesting observation is that while both the construction and manufacturing sectors had similar levels of excess labour supply, the vacancy rate in construction was significantly higher at 3.6 percent, compared to 2.2 percent in manufacturing. This suggests that employers in the construction sector face more challenges in finding workers with the right skills.

The unemployment-to-job vacancy ratios across industries excluded some 612,000 unclassified unemployed persons: those who had never worked before or were employed more than a year earlier. According to Statistics Canada, about 43 percent of job vacancies in the third quarter of 2024 were for entry-level positions, which is helpful for those unclassified unemployed persons as these roles typically do not require prior experience. However, the specific skills and education requirements of these entry-level positions remain unclear.

An analysis of educational requirements for vacancies in the same quarter shows that 48 percent of all job vacancies required post-secondary training or education. Positions requiring post-secondary education below a bachelor’s degree had an unemployment-to-job vacancy ratio of 2.6, while those requiring a bachelor’s degree or higher faced a higher ratio of 4.1. In contrast, vacancies requiring only a high-school diploma or less had a lower unemployment-to-job vacancy ratio of 1.8. However, employers find it more challenging to secure suitable candidates for positions requiring higher educational levels and specialized skills, particularly at wage levels that candidates are willing to accept.

Wages play an important role in reducing labour market imbalances, as they affect both the supply and demand for labour and encourage labour mobility and reallocation. Between Q4 2019 and Q3 2024, the average offered hourly wage saw the largest increases in industries such as arts and entertainment, agriculture, and information and cultural industries (over 30 percent). These sectors also experienced the most significant reductions in job vacancies, suggesting that offering higher wages can help alleviate labour shortages. To address shortages more broadly, there may also need to be a restructuring of relative wages and working conditions between occupations with labour shortages and those with surplus labour.

Offered wage, or stated salary, rates for vacant positions should largely depend on the growth of job vacancies and the difficulties in finding candidates to fill them. However, Figure 6 shows that industries experiencing a surge in vacancies post-pandemic did not respond consistently. In fact, the average hourly offered wage in these industries fell short of the national average, which was 27 percent between Q4 2019 and Q3 2024. For example, despite substantial growth in vacancies and a shortage of candidates in healthcare, the average offered wage growth in this industry only increased by 23 percent. This is largely due to government control over wages, making them less responsive to market forces. Policies like Ontario’s Bill 124, which capped annual wage increases at one percent for civil servants from 2019 to 2022, have contributed to this restraint. Additionally, multi-year labour contracts and provincial efforts to reduce deficits and debt post-COVID have further limited wage growth in the sector.

In Q3 2024, the average hourly offered wage in the utilities sector only increased by 2 percent compared to the pre-pandemic level, despite a 48 percent increase in job vacancies. Employers in this sector need to raise wages to attract and retain workers with the necessary skills. Otherwise, they will rely on their current workforce to work longer hours to maintain operations, which can lead to lower productivity per additional hour of work and retention challenges.

The average offered wage rate by occupation follows a similar trend (Appendix Figure A3). For example, despite a 59 percent increase in job vacancies, the wage rate for occupations in education, law and social, community and government services only rose by 16 percent, which is below the national average. This further highlights the need for employers to raise wages and improve working conditions to attract and retain workers.

Outcomes by Demographic Characteristics

While labour market indicators point to a strong post-pandemic recovery characterized by high employment, not all working-age Canadians have equally participated in and benefited from this resurgence, highlighting untapped potential across different population groups. Notably, recent demographic trends highlight that the older population and immigrants experience distinct labour market outcomes. Seniors (aged 65 and over) have substantially lower labour force participation rates compared to other demographics, raising concerns about both their economic security and potential contributions to the workforce. Additionally, immigrants frequently face employment barriers that limit their ability to fully integrate into the labour market and contribute to addressing the challenges posed by an aging population. Understanding the labour market outcomes for these groups is important for identifying the obstacles they face and formulating targeted policy recommendations to enhance their participation and success in the workforce.16

Age

There are significant variations in labour force participation across age groups. As expected, seniors exhibit the lowest participation rates, with their engagement in the labour market declining substantially after age 65 (Figure 7). Seniors’ participation rate is low across all provinces, albeit with varying degrees. For instance, Saskatchewan has the highest participation rate for seniors at 18.5 percent, while Newfoundland and Labrador records a notably lower rate of 11.5 percent. The four provinces in the Atlantic region, where the aging problem is more severe, have the lowest participation rate. A lack of employment opportunities for seniors in this region seems to be a major driver, with their unemployment rate significantly higher than both the national average and their counterparts aged 25 to 64 (except for Nova Scotia) (Figure 8).

While seniors participate far less than other Canadians in the labour market, Figure 9 shows significant shifts in their average retirement age over time and notable differences across employment types. Self-employed workers consistently retire later than other workers, with their average retirement age exceeding 68 in recent years, while public sector workers tend to retire earlier. These trends likely reflect variations in pension structures, job security, and financial incentives across employment types. Between 1976 and 1998, the average retirement age of all workers declined by four years to 60.9, likely influenced by the introduction of early retirement pension schemes in order to free up jobs for younger workers (OECD 2017). However, this shift had no obvious impact on younger workers’ employment. Many economists also warned that these measures were shortsighted, as the aging of the baby boomer generation would eventually create new challenges. Meanwhile, concerns about the financial sustainability of pension systems grew due to the increasing life expectancy and subsequent rising costs of providing retirement income (Banks et al. 2010; Herbertsson and Orszag 2003; Jousten et al. 2008; Kalwij et al. 2010; OECD 2017).

In response, the federal government in 2012 increased financial penalties for early retirement to encourage longer working lives.17 Consequently, the average retirement age of all workers began to rise and reached 65.3 in 2024, slightly surpassing its 1976 level. However, the persistent gap between the public sector and self-employed workers suggests that policy adjustments – such as pension reform or incentives for longer careers in the public sector – could be considered to encourage more uniform retirement patterns across employment types. The recent influx of immigrants may also help to alleviate the impact of the retirement wave, as immigrants are more likely to keep working and retire later. According to Fan (2024), the average retirement age among immigrant workers is around 66 over the last decade, two years older than that for Canadian-born workers.

Accordingly, the LFPR of seniors has increased substantially from a historical low of 6 percent in 2001 to 15 percent in 2024. Termination of mandatory retirement, lack of sufficient savings, higher educational attainments, and better health conditions among seniors have contributed to these LFPR increases.18 Hicks (2012) predicts that social and economic pressures will lead to further delay in retirement in the future. For example, of all seniors aged 65 to 74, including both Canadian-born and immigrants, one in ten were employed in 2022 (Morissette and Hou 2024). Nine percent reported working by necessity, while immigrant seniors were more likely to do so than their Canadian-born counterparts.

In the long run, labour productivity growth is the primary driver of Canada’s GDP per capita growth, though the participation rate of seniors can also have a significant impact. Wang (2022) found that during the pandemic, declines in employment and participation rates driven by young people and seniors were major contributors to the sharp drop in GDP per capita. He estimated that if work intensity, the employment rate, and the participation rate had maintained their pre-pandemic momentum from 2010 onward, Canada’s GDP per capita could have been 4 percent higher in 2021 than it was.

As babyboomers are gradually retiring, their lower LFPR will continue to influence the overall participation rate. Vézina et al. (2024) found that the overall participation rate is expected to continue declining in the short term, regardless of the number of immigrants selected. Across various scenarios, the overall participation rate appears to be more sensitive to changes in the participation of seniors than to increases in immigration.19 As a result, keeping older workers, particularly those aged 55 and over, in the labour market could significantly impact the future overall participation rate. As more older workers remain employed, improvements in employment assistance, labour market flexibility, and skills upgrading will be essential (Vézina et al. 2024).

International Comparisons of Pension and Retirement Policies

An international comparison reveals that differences in pension and retirement policies play a crucial role in explaining disparities in employment and retirement decisions across countries (Figure 10). Factors such as the flexibility to choose between continuing to work or claiming a pension, legal provisions regarding age-based termination of employment, and employers’ retention strategies – such as offering on-the-job training and flexible work schedules – greatly influence retirement timing.

One of the most significant factors contributing to the variation in employment decisions across OECD countries is the normal age at which individuals can claim full pension benefits. For instance, in 2022, over 32 percent of Iceland’s population aged 65 and over was employed, although the normal retirement age is 67, with the earliest pension access at age 65. In contrast, only about 14 percent of Canada’s population in the same age group remained employed despite having a higher life expectancy. This discrepancy can be explained by Canada’s normal retirement age of 65, with pension benefits available as early as age 60.

Cross-country analyses show that policy reforms reducing financial incentives for early retirement were key drivers behind the increase in old-age employment (Coile et al. 2024). To address challenges related to aging populations, many countries such as Australia, Denmark, the UK, Japan and Italy have raised, or plan to gradually increase, the retirement age to encourage longer working lives. Denmark and Sweden have even indexed their mandatory retirement ages to life expectancy. Canada should consider similar approaches by raising the normal retirement age and delaying the earliest access age.

Immigrants

International immigration has significantly contributed to Canada’s population and labour force growth. Between 2019 and 2024, immigrants and non-permanent residents accounted for 68 percent of the population growth and over 88 percent of the increase in the labour force. However, immigrants often encounter various obstacles such as language barriers, a lack of Canadian work experience and varying recognition for foreign education and experience (Mahboubi and Zhang 2024). These challenges can limit their employment opportunities and earnings. Furthermore, as Canada faces an aging population, the challenge of integrating immigrants into the workforce becomes even more critical. While aging workers often possess valuable experience, they may struggle with the physical demands of certain jobs or require retraining. Newcomers, on the other hand, may not be immediately equipped to fill these gaps in employment. The productivity levels of immigrants can also be affected by their integration into the labour market, as they may require additional training and support to navigate workplace expectations and cultural nuances.

In 2024, immigrants aged 25 to 54 had a lower employment rate (by 4.3 percentage points) compared to non-immigrants (Figure 11). This gap has narrowed since 2006 and continued to decline even through the pandemic despite the latter’s greater impact on immigrants.20 The remaining gap is mainly due to the lower employment rate of female immigrants.

Employment outcomes of immigrants, particularly among women, depend predominantly on the number of years spent in Canada. For women aged 25-54, the employment gap between female non-immigrants and more recent immigrants (who landed less than 5 years) was 15.5 percentage points. This gap narrowed to 10.6 percentage points for immigrants who landed between 6 and 10 years and further to 6.2 percentage points for those who have been in Canada for more than 10 years.

Over the last decade, the improvements in immigrant employment rates are likely attributed to several factors. These include an increased selection of economic immigrants from non-permanent residents with Canadian work experience, the implementation of the Express Entry21 system for immigration selection, and favourable economic conditions where the demand and supply of immigrant labour are broadly aligned (Hou 2024). In addition, the growth in managerial, professional, and technical occupations accelerated in the late 2010s (Frenette 2023), which would benefit recent immigrants with a university education. Recent immigrants in the prime age group of 25 to 54 have seen faster employment rate growth since the early 2010s, with a notable increase of 13.1 percentage points from 2010 to 2024, compared to a 3.5 percentage point increase among non-immigrants.

However, it’s important to note that some of these conditions may change in the short term. For example, the employment rate for recent immigrants stalled from 2022 to 2023, a period when labour shortages eased, and levels of both permanent and non-permanent immigration rose rapidly (Hou 2024). As such, the dynamics of labour supply and demand have changed, particularly with the increases in the labour supply of new immigrants and non-permanent residents coupled with a cooling labour market and rising unemployment. This could negatively affect the employment outcomes of foreign-born residents in Canada more than those of Canadian-born individuals, as immigrants are often disproportionately affected during economic downturns. In 2024, there was a large increase in the unemployment rate of recent permanent immigrants, rising from 8 percent in 2023 to 9.9 percent. This is more than double the unemployment rate of non-immigrants, indicating the difficulties recent immigrants face in securing employment.

The employment rate of immigrants residing in some provinces is lower than the national rate, such as Ontario and PEI (Figure 12). The relatively poor employment outcomes among immigrants in these provinces may stem from specific employment barriers unique to immigrants, as the unemployment rate of non-immigrants in these provinces remains below the national rate. However, immigrants in Newfoundland and Labrador have a higher employment rate than non-immigrants. In contrast, the employment gap between immigrants and non-immigrants is most pronounced in Quebec, a province with the highest employment rate for non-immigrants in Canada. This gap can, to some extent, be due to a large gap in the unemployment rates of these two population groups. The unemployment rate of immigrants in Quebec is twice that of non-immigrants (or a gap of 3.5 percentage points). Grenier and Nadeau (2011) show that the lack of knowledge of French largely explains why the employment rate gap between immigrants and non-immigrants is larger in Montreal than in Toronto. Greater emphasis on official language training could enhance their ability to fully participate in the local labour market.

Policy Discussion

While the Canadian labour market has shown resilience post-pandemic and continued to perform relatively well in 2024, significant disparities across regions, industries, and demographic groups highlight opportunities to improve participation and employment outcomes. Further, Canada’s declining productivity poses a challenge to the labour market’s ability to drive sustained economic growth and competitiveness.

Demographic shifts, particularly an aging population, continue to affect participation rates and contribute to some shortages. Notably, the expansion of the health industry and the associated labour shortages are closely tied to Canada’s aging population. However, in some industries, average offered wages have not risen enough to attract a larger labour supply, and employers have not sufficiently adopted alternative strategies, such as capital investment and automation, to address their workforce needs.

Addressing these challenges requires a holistic approach. Beyond automation and higher wages, investing in existing workers and removing barriers to labour-market participation by underrepresented groups – such as women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, and seniors – can significantly improve labour market outcomes.

Regional differences in economic conditions contribute to provincial variations in the participation of seniors, while differences in pension and retirement policies play an important role in driving discrepancies in retirement timing across countries. Gradually increasing the normal retirement age is a strategy adopted by some countries to encourage later retirement among seniors. In Canada, the federal government in Budget 2019 offered a way to make later retirement financially more attractive by increasing the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) earnings exemption, allowing seniors to retain more of their increased income if they choose to work. However, provincial measures aimed at boosting older workers’ labour force participation have had mixed results. For instance, Lacroix and Michaud (2024) found that a tax credit in Quebec designed to boost employment among older workers had no significant impact on transitions in or out of the labour force, with only modest effects on earnings for those aged 60 to 64. The study concluded that this measure was not a cost-effective way to increase public revenue or employment rates for older workers.

While the Conservative government in 2012 announced a plan to gradually raise the eligibility age for Canada’s Old Age Security benefits from 65 to 67 starting in 2023, the newly elected Liberal government cancelled the plan in 2016. However, with an aging population and increasing longevity, Canada should reconsider gradual adjustments to the normal retirement age and the earliest access age to help sustain public pension systems and ease demographic pressures. This approach aligns with successful international models, though it requires careful implementation to account for differences in job types and income levels.

Seniors today are healthier and living longer, and delaying retirement can offer both personal and economic benefits and ease demographic transitions (Robson and Mahboubi 2018). Longer working lives allow individuals to accumulate greater retirement savings, reducing the risk of financial insecurity in old age. Working longer has also been linked to better cognitive function, mental well-being, and social engagement.

That said, raising the retirement age would affect workers differently depending on their occupations and financial situations. While high-income, knowledge-based workers may benefit from extended careers through flexible work arrangements or hybrid options, many low-income workers in physically demanding jobs – such as those in construction, manufacturing, or caregiving – may find it challenging to work longer. Policies promoting flexible work options, lifelong learning initiatives, and encouraging and monitoring training program uptake22 can help older workers stay in the workforce longer and maintain their skills (Mahboubi and Mokaya 2021).23 Targeted support, such as enhanced workplace accommodations, phased retirement options, and retraining programs for workers in physically demanding jobs, could ensure that a later retirement age does not disproportionately burden lower-income individuals.

In response to population aging and existing labour shortages, Canada has increasingly relied on higher levels of immigration. However, the overqualification of immigrants’ skills and credentials, particularly among those from non-Western countries, remains a persistent issue. The successful integration of newcomers into the workforce is important to mitigate the short-term impact of an aging population on the labour market and enhance productivity. For example, recognizing the credentials of foreign-trained professionals in fields like healthcare could increase their productivity and earnings, helping to address the chronic shortage of healthcare workers. However, many skilled immigrants hold qualifications in regulated fields overseen by provincial regulatory bodies, which creates considerable barriers to entering the labour market. While these regulations aim to uphold public safety, they differ among provinces. Over the past few years, several provincial governments have taken steps to reduce barriers for foreign-trained immigrants. For instance, British Columbia and Nova Scotia have expedited credential assessments for foreign-trained healthcare professionals, which helped expand their healthcare workforce. Other provinces should consider adopting similar initiatives.

Licensed workers, either immigrants or non-immigrants, in these occupations also face barriers if they wish to change their province of residence. Easing provincial labour mobility in regulated professions could help reduce regional labour shortages in these sectors. Ensuring immigrants’ skills and qualifications are recognized and accepted by employers is also important.

Canada also needs to adopt more effective settlement strategies, with a strong emphasis on improving language proficiency for immigrants who struggle with communication skills. Language training tailored to workplace culture can also bridge language gaps and help newcomers obtain licences to integrate into the labour market. A notable example is the Health English Language Pro (HELP) program, which was launched by ACCES Employment to support internationally educated physicians. The program pairs Canadian physician volunteers with internationally trained medical graduates to help them acquire the necessary medical English skills. Furthermore, in recent years, the expansion of language training facilities has not kept pace with the explosive increase in the number of permanent and temporary immigrants. Governments need to systematically evaluate settlement service agencies to assess the returns on investment and enhance the effectiveness of these services in the labour market.

In addition to reducing regional disparities and improving labour market fluidity – making it easier for workers to transition between jobs – Canada should also focus on increasing GDP per capita by encouraging greater capital investment (Robson, Kronick and Kim 2019; Gu 2024; Robson and Bafale 2023 and 2024) and promoting the adoption of new technologies (e.g., AI, robotics, and automation), with a focus on increasing productivity and complementing the skills of the existing workforce.

Canada’s labour productivity has declined recently – a worrisome trend. Enhancing labour productivity involves addressing skill shortages, overqualification and mismatches. Policies that encourage training and promote automation, as well as higher wages in high-demand sectors, are essential. The potential of AI should also be explored to support labour productivity and mitigate skills and labour shortages (Mahboubi and Zhang 2023). However, it is equally important to provide support for the displacement of low-skilled workers who may be impacted by automation. Governments and employers should focus on training programs that align with the evolving demands of the labour market, including reskilling and upskilling initiatives for those at risk of displacement.

Conclusion

Addressing the challenges of an aging population, a lower senior participation rate, the overqualification of immigrants’ skills, and declining labour productivity requires comprehensive and targeted policy interventions. Canada’s labour market will benefit from proactive measures that support both its existing workforce and newcomers while addressing the demographic pressures ahead.

To ensure sustainable economic growth and greater labour market participation, the following policy actions should be considered:

  • The federal government should gradually raise the normal retirement age to 67 and assess the benefits of delaying the earliest access age for pension benefits, in line with successful international models.
  • Provincial governments should adopt targeted policies to support older workers, such as promoting flexible work arrangements, part-time career opportunities, and self-employment options, particularly in regions like the Atlantic provinces, where senior participation is notably low.
  • All levels of government should invest in high-quality training programs that equip individuals with the skills needed for the evolving labour market, such as digital skills and job search strategies, with a focus on underrepresented groups like seniors, Indigenous Peoples, and youth.
  • Provinces and regulatory bodies should collaborate to streamline the licensing process for skilled immigrants, enabling foreign-trained professionals to meet local regulatory requirements more efficiently. They should also work together to ease labour mobility in regulated occupations, ensuring that qualifications are recognized across regions without compromising service quality.
  • The federal government should invest in enhancing settlement strategies for immigrants, including providing language training tailored to workplace culture. It is also important to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs to ensure they adequately support newcomers’ integration into the workforce.
  • Employers, in collaboration with governments, should integrate automation and advanced technologies such as AI to boost productivity while ensuring that workers’ skills align with the evolving demands of the economy.

By implementing these policies, Canada can better navigate labour market imbalances, enhance its labour force participation, and position itself for sustainable economic growth in the face of demographic and technological change.

Appendix

For the Silo, Parisa Mahboubj / Tingting Zahn.

The authors extend gratitude to Pierre Fortin, Mikal Skuterud, Steven Tobin, William B.P. Robson, Rosalie Wyonch, and several anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions. The authors retain responsibility for any errors and the views expressed.

References

Acemoglu, Daron, and Pischke, Jörn-Steffen. 1999. “The structure of wages and investment in general training.” Journal of Political Economy 107(3): 539-572.

Banks, James, et al. 2010. “Releasing Jobs for the Young? Early Retirement and Youth Unemployment in the United Kingdom.” In Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World: The Relationship to Youth Employment. University of Chicago Press, pp. 319-344.

Busby, Colin, and Ramya Muthukumaran. 2016. Precarious Positions: Policy Options to Mitigate Risks in Non-standard Employment. Commentary. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. December.

Casey, Bernard. 1998. “Incentives and Disincentives to Early and Late Retirement.” Working Paper AWP3.3. Paris: OECD.

Coile, Courtney, David Wise, Axel Börsch-Supan, Jonathan Gruber, Kevin Milligan, Richard Woodbury, Michael Baker, James Banks, Luc Behaghel, Melika Ben Salem, Paul Bingley, Didier Blanchet, Richard Blundell, Michele Boldrín, Antoine Bozio, Agar Brugiavini, Tabea Bucher-Koenen, Raluca Elena Buia, Eve Caroli, Naohiro Yashiro. 2025. “Social Security and Retirement around the World: Lessons from a Long-term Collaboration.” Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 24: 8-30.

Coile, Courtney, Kevin S. Milligan, and David A. Wise. 2018. “Social Security Programs and Retirement Around the World: Working Longer – Introduction and Summary.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 24584. May.

Employment and Social Development Canada. 2023. “Canadian Occupational Projection System (COPS)-Information Documents.” Available at: https://occupations.esdc.gc.ca/sppc-cops/libdetails.jsp?lang=en&fbc=Y

Fan, Claire. 2024. “Immigrants participation in the labour force surpasses those born in Canada.” RBC Thought Leadership. Available at: https://thoughtleadership.rbc.com/proof-point-immigrants-participation-in-the-labour-force-surpasses-those-born-in-canada/?utm_medium=johnsocial&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=Econ

Fortin, Pierre, 2024. “Does immigration help alleviate economy-wide labour shortages?” CLEF Working Paper Series 70, Canadian Labour Economics Forum (CLEF), University of Waterloo.

Fortin, Pierre, 2025. The Immigration Paradox: How an Influx of Newcomers Has Led to Labour Shortages. Commentary 677. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. February.

Gagnon, Morgan, Sithandazile Kuzviwanza. 2023. “Mapping Employment Supports for Québec’s Racialized and Immigrant English-speaking Communities.” Provincial Employment Roundtable (PERT). July.

Grenier, Gilles, and Serge Nadeau. 2011. “Immigrant access to work in Montreal and Toronto.” Canadian Journal of Regional Science 34(1): 19-32.

Gu, Wulong. 2024. “Investment Slowdown in Canada After the Mid-2000s: The Role of Competition and Intangibles.” Statistics Canada. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/11f0019m2024001-eng

Guillemette, Yvan. 2006. “Misplaced Talent: The Rising Dispersion of Unemployment Rates in Canada.” E-Brief 33. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Haun, Chris. 2023. “A Detailed Analysis of Canada’s Post-2000 Productivity Performance and Pandemic-Era Productivity Slowdown.” Center for the Study of Living Standards. Available at https://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2023-11.pdf

Herbertsson, Tryggvi Thor, and Mike Orszag. 2003. “The Early Retirement Burden: Assessing the Costs of the Continued Prevalence of Early Retirement in OECD Countries.” IZA Discussion Paper, No. 816, July.

Holland, Brian. 2018. “Defining and Measuring Workforce Development in a Post-Bipartisan Era.” GLO Discussion Paper Series # 234, Global Labour Organization (GLO).

___________. 2019. “The Design and Uses of an Employability Index to Evaluate the Vertical Workforce Development Process.” New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development 31(2): 41-59.

Hou, Feng. 2024. “The improvement in the labour market outcomes of recent immigrants since the mid-2010s.” Statistics Canada. February. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202400200004-eng

Jousten, Alain, Mathieu Lefèbvre, Sergio Perelman,and Pierre Pestieau. 2010. “The Effects of Early Retirement on Youth Unemployment: The Case of Belgium.” In Social Security Programs and Retirement Around the World: The Relationship to Youth Employment. University of Chicago Press, pp. 47-76.

Kalwij, Adriaan, Arie Kapteyn and Klass de Vos. 2010. “Retirement of Older Workers and Employment of the Young.” De Economist 158 (4): 341-359.

Lacroix, Guy, and Pierre-Carl Michaud. 2024. “Tax Incentives and Older Workers: Evidence from Canada.” HEC Montreal. Working Paper. September.

Lefebvre, Pierre, and Philip Merrigan. 2008. “Child-Care Policy and the Labour Supply of Mothers with Young Children: A Natural Experiment from Canada.” Journal of Labour Economics 26 (3): 519-48.

Lu, Yuqian, and Feng Hou. 2023. “Foreign workers in Canada: Distribution of paid employment by industry.” Statistics Canada. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202301200005-eng

Mahboubi, Parisa. 2017a. The Power of Words: Improving Immigrants’ Literacy Skills. Commentary 486. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. May.

___________. 2017b. “Talkin’ ‘Bout My Generation: More Educated, But Less Skilled Canadians.” E-Brief. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

___________. 2024. Quality Over Quantity: How Canada’s Immigration System Can Catch Up With Its Competitors. Commentary 654. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. February.

Mahboubi, Parisa, and Amira Higazy. 2022. Lives Put on Hold: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Canada’s Youth. Commentary 624. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. July

Mahboubi, Parisa, and Momanyi Mokaya. 2021. The Skills Imperative: Workforce Development Strategies Post-COVID. Commentary 609. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Mahboubi, Parisa, and Tingting Zhang. 2023. Empty Seats: Why Labour Shortages Plague Small and Medium-Sized Businesses and What to Do About It. Commentary 648. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. November.

___________. 2024. Harnessing Immigrant Talent: Reducing Overqualification and Strengthening the Immigration System. Commentary 672. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Mischke, Jan, Chris Bradley, Marc Canal, Olivia White, Sven Smit, and Denitsa Georgieva. 2024. “Investing in productivity growth.” McKinsey Global Institute. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/investing-in-productivity-growth?stcr=7A4A10A6D14341799125FD0D945DE5F4&cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck&hlkid=72faf5b1056a4da5913de34ab992272c&hctky=13711536&hdpid=0f032b80-145b-4cc4-995d-dc2ef7d9468d

Morissette, René, and Feng Hou. 2024. “Employment by choice and necessity among Canadian born and immigrant seniors.” Statistics Canada. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202400400002-eng

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017. Pensions at a Glance 2017: OECD and G20 Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pensions-at-a-glance-2017_pension_glance-2017-en.html

OECD. 2024. Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en

______. 2022. What has been the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on immigrants? An update on recent evidence. OECD Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/65cfc31c-en

______. “Online OECD Family database.” OECD Publishing. Paris. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm

Pastore, Francesco. 2018. “Why is youth unemployment so high and different across countries?” IZA World of Labour. Available at: https://wol.iza.org/articles/why-is-youth-unemployment-so-high-and-different-across-countries

Picot, Garnett, and Feng Hou. 2024. “Immigration and the shifting occupational distribution in Canada, 2001 to 2021.” Statistics Canada. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202400300006-eng

Picot, Garnett, and Tahsin Mehdi. 2024. “The Provision of Higher- and Lower-skilled Immigrant Labour to the Canadian Economy.” Statistics Canada. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202400900005-eng

Robson, William B.P. 2019. Thin Capitalization: Weak Business Investment Undermines Canadian Workers. Commentary 550. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. August.

Robson, William B.P., and Mawakina Bafale. 2024. Underequipped: How Weak Capital Investment Hurts Canadian Prosperity and What to Do about It. Commentary 666. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. September.

Robson, William B.P, and Mawakina Bafale. 2023. Working Harder for Less: More People but Less Capital Is No Recipe for Prosperity. Commentary 647. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. June.

Robson, William B.P., and Parisa Mahboubi. 2018. “Inflated Expectations: More Immigrants Can’t Solve Canada’s Aging Problem on Their Own.” E-Brief. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. November.

Robson, William B.P., Jeremy Kronick and Jacob Kim. 2018. Tooling Up: Canada Needs More Robust Capital Investment. Commentary 520. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. September.

Rogers, Carolyn. 2024. “Time to break the glass: Fixing Canada’s productivity problem.” Bank of Canada. Available at: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2024/03/time-to-break-the-glass-fixing-canadas-productivity-problem/

Schimmele, Christoph, and Feng Hou. 2024. “Trends in Education–Occupation Mismatch among Recent Immigrants with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher, 2001 to 2021.” Statistics Canada. May 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202400500002-eng

Skuterud, Mikal. 2023. “Canada’s Missing Workers: Temporary Residents Working in Canada.” E-Brief 345. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. September.

Skuterud, Mikal. 2025. “The Growing Data Gap on Canada’s Temporary Resident Workforce.” E-Brief 367. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. February.

Statistics Canada. 2022. “The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the economic integration of many immigrants.” The Daily. December 5. Available at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/221205/dq221205b-eng.pdf?st=V29agyBR

Vézina, Samuel, Jean-Dominique Morency, Laurent Martel and François Pelletier. 2024. “Canadian Labour Force: What Will Happen Once Baby Boomers Retire?” Statistics Canada. Available at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2024001/article/00005-eng.htm

Wang, Weimin. 2022. “The COVID-19 Pandemic and Gross Domestic Product Per Capita Growth in Canada.” Statistics Canada. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202200500002-eng

Yong, Rebekah, and René Lalonde. 2024. “Raising the Bar, Not Just Lowering the Number: Canada’s Immigration Policy Confronts Critical Choices.” Scotiabank. Available at https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.insights-views.canada-s-immigration-policy–march-21–2024-.html

Stop Assuming Immigration Will Solve Canada’s Labour Crisis 

Newcomers increase consumption and spending, and are actually contributing to demand for labour in other sectors.

Study in Brief

  • This study investigates the effects of Canada’s expansive immigration policy, implemented between 2016 and 2024, on labour shortages. It explores how the influx of permanent and temporary immigrants has affected the balance between labour supply and demand, with attention to whether the policy has met one of its key objectives – alleviating shortages in labour markets.
  • It provides an analysis of labour market dynamics through the lens of the Beveridge curve, which tracks the joint path of unemployment and job vacancies over time. The study compares labour market tightness before, during, and after the pandemic and evaluates how rapidly rising immigration and the adoption of remote work have affected job vacancy rates in Canada.
  • The arrival of immigrant workers has expanded the supply of labour to employers, but has also generated additional income and spending, and hence greater demand for labour throughout the economy. The macroeconomic evidence from this study indicates that, on balance, the increase in demand generated by immigration has more than likely outpaced the additional supply, potentially making economy-wide labour shortages more widespread rather than alleviating them.

Introduction

Canada’s immigration levels began to accelerate in 2016, following a period of relative stability. From 2001 to 2015, the annual inflow of immigrants, including both permanent and temporary admissions, was reasonably stable at around 0.85 percent of the overall population. In the following years, despite a temporary contraction during the pandemic, this rate rose fourfold, reaching up to 3.2 percent of the population in 2023.

This post-2015 expansion was consistent with recommendations from the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, established by Minister of Finance Bill Morneau in 2016. The Council’s 2016 report suggested that the annual number of permanent economic immigrants should be increased from 300,000 in 2016 to 450,000 in 2021, and to nearly double this number later. Its stated objectives were to increase population growth, reduce the old age dependency ratio, generate a bigger GDP, and accelerate the rise in real GDP per capita by easing shortages of high-skilled workers and other means. Policymakers, encouraged by the perceived success of Canada’s immigration program, embraced the idea that higher immigration levels could deliver even greater economic and demographic benefits.1 The Council also urged the government to facilitate admissions of temporary workers and attract more international students. The government responded by increasing permanent immigration levels from 270,000 in 2015 to 480,000 in 2024, allowing uncapped increases in temporary immigration, and trying to address shortages of low- as well as high-skilled labour.

The C.D. Howe Institute’s research has shown that the benefits of immigration in mitigating population aging, and supporting the growth of GDP per capita, have been more limited than expected (Mahboubi and Robson 2018; Doyle, Skuterud and Worswick 2024). The present study is an attempt to assess whether the policy has succeeded in meeting the goal of easing the challenges employers face in finding suitable candidates for their job openings. The answer to this question has clearly been a big “yes” at the level of the individual employer. Many employers are benefiting from the contribution of their new immigrant workers, which is the basis for the unrelenting support for more immigration by representative national business organizations.

It is less clear whether immigration has helped alleviate labour shortages in the overall economy. Immigration not only expands the supply of labour, but also adds to the demand for labour. Putting more immigrants to work generates an expansionary multiplier effect on gross domestic product (GDP) and national income. As the additional income is spent on various consumption and investment goods by households, businesses and governments, the demand for labour increases. The net effect of immigration on the difference between supply and demand in the aggregate economy is, therefore, a priori uncertain. It could be negative or positive.

My goal in this study is to uncover what simple economic logic, and the statistical evidence from Canadian macrodata, reveal about the direction and quantitative importance of the net effect of rising immigration on the economy-wide balance between the demand for, and the supply of, labour. I find that the demand has likely matched or exceeded the supply and has therefore increased the overall job vacancy rate at any given level of unemployment.

Labour Shortages and Job Vacancies

What do “labour shortages” mean, and how have they evolved since Canada’s immigration rate began to increase eight years ago? Employers feel they are short of labour when the number of unfilled job openings significantly exceeds the number of available employees with the necessary skills and qualifications to meet their operational needs. Each month, Statistics Canada reports the extent of labour shortages in various sectors and regions from its Job Vacancy and Wage Survey. It is called the “job vacancy rate” and is an estimate of the number of job vacancies as a percentage of total labour demand, including all occupied and vacant salaried jobs.

Data on the job vacancy rate have been available since 2015 (Figure 1). After the oil-induced economic slowdown of 2014-2015, job vacancies increased from 2.3 percent of labour demand in mid-2016 to 3.3 percent in early 2020. No vacancy data were available from April to September 2020 due to a six-month pandemic-related pause in Statistics Canada’s survey. Moving through the spring 2020 recession, but with the unemployment rate still very high, job vacancies then increased swiftly, reaching a peak of 5.7 percent of all occupied and vacant jobs in the second quarter of 2022. But with the economic slowdown and slackened labour markets subsequently accompanying high interest rates, vacancies fell back to 3.0 percent of labour demand in the third quarter of 2024.

Immigration and Labour Supply and Demand

Since 2015, Canada’s job vacancy rate has fluctuated in response to three key macroeconomic factors: rising immigration, the pandemic, and fluctuations in aggregate economic activity.

Immigration has risen steadily in recent years, with both permanent and temporary entries increasing in each non-pandemic year (Figure 2). Permanent admissions rose from 272,000 in 2015 to 472,000 in 2023. This upward trend was guided by the multi-year immigration-level targets set each year since 2017 by the government in its Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration. For example, the target for permanent admissions in 2023 was set at 465,000 in the 2022 Report.

Temporary immigration includes holders of study or temporary work permits, asylum seekers, and their family members. They are collectively referred to as “non-permanent residents” by Statistics Canada. Prior to 2024, temporary immigration was excluded from the government’s annual targets. It was uncapped and followed demand from businesses and educational establishments. The net annual addition to temporary permits (new entries less exits to permanent residence and to abroad) rose from basically zero in 2015 to 190,000 in 2019, and 821,000 in 2023 (Figure 2).

Overall, total immigration – the sum of permanent and temporary immigration – increased fivefold from 263,000 in 2015, to 1,293,000 in 2023. Was this fivefold surge in immigration over eight years able to lower the job vacancy rate and reduce labour shortages in the aggregate Canadian economy? How could it not? Prima facie, the arrival of new immigrant workers increases the supply of labour, allowing recipient employers to ameliorate their personnel gap, at least in part. The addition of immigrant labour might suggest the “common sense” inference that labour scarcity has been effectively eased up throughout the economy.

However, it is erroneous to assume that simply because immigration solves the personnel shortage of individual employers, it will necessarily solve the problem of labour scarcity in the aggregate economy.

The error comes from focusing narrowly on increasing the supply of labour, while neglecting the simultaneous increase in the demand for labour that is generated by immigration. With more immigrants in the workforce, employers can produce more goods and services and generate more income for themselves, their employees, and their suppliers – a good thing. However, to assess the overall effect of immigration on labour scarcity, it is crucial to consider that this additional income will be spent on various consumer and investment goods. Immigrants allocate their new income, along with any savings brought from abroad, to essentials such as food, clothing, housing, transportation, personal care, and leisure. In turn, employers and their chains of suppliers invest more in construction, machinery and intellectual property. Furthermore, immigrants, employers and suppliers all contribute to taxes, which governments allocate to meet the increased demand for social services, including public housing, education, and healthcare. The growing demand for private and public goods and services will expand aggregate labour demand.

In other words, the hiring of immigrants initially adds to the supply of labour, but it also ends up adding to the demand for labour once the new income generated is spent throughout the economy and a multiplier effect is generated on GDP. On net, it is a priori uncertain whether the supply increases more than the demand, in which case labour would be made less scarce overall, or whether it is the demand that increases more than the supply, in which case labour would be made scarcer.

As a first attempt to clarify the picture, let us see how the excess of labour supply over labour demand evolved from 2016 to 2024 (Figure 3). I take labour supply to be the entire labour force (all workers who are employed or are looking for work), and labour demand to be the sum of employment and job vacancies (all jobs that are occupied or ready to be filled). Expressed as a percentage of the labour force, the difference between the two – excess supply – boils down to the difference between unemployment and job vacancies. Excess supply goes up or down depending on whether unemployment increases more or less than job vacancies.

Figure 3 shows that the excess supply of labour has fluctuated widely since 2016. In the pre-pandemic period 2016-2019, it declined from 5.4 percent to 2.9 percent of the labour force. Labour became scarcer. During the pandemic year 2020, it shot up to 6.1 percent of the labour force. But in the aftermath, labour demand outpaced supply again so that by mid-2022 excess supply had dropped to a low of 0.3 percent of the labour force. Since then, it has risen back to 4.1 percent.

The time path of the excess supply of labour cannot alone determine whether the rise in immigration since 2016 has increased labour supply more or less than labour demand. Excess supply results from the interplay of three simultaneous determinants: rising permanent immigration and accelerating temporary immigration, the disruptions caused by the pandemic and its potential after-effects, and fluctuations in aggregate activity. For example, the declining excess supply in the pre-pandemic period 2016-2019 was the combined outcome of rising immigration and aggregate economic expansion. But the impact of rising immigration cannot be separated out from that of aggregate economic expansion by just looking at the trend in excess supply. Correctly identifying the net effect of each of the two factors requires a more comprehensive economic and statistical analysis of the data.

The Shifting Beveridge Curve

To identify the net effect of immigration on labour shortages, I will use a well-established tool called the Beveridge curve. The Beveridge curve offers valuable insights by highlighting the observed inverse relation between vacancies and unemployment.

William Beveridge (Beveridge 1960) used the unemployment rate as a main marker of fluctuations in aggregate activity, a practice business cycle analysts still follow to this day (Romer and Romer 2019; Hazell et al. 2022). He observed that vacancies and unemployment typically move in opposite directions through business cycles. He attributed the negative relationship to the pressure exerted by aggregate activity on economic potential. When aggregate economic activity was moving up to its full potential (as in Canada in 2016-2019), there were fewer unemployed workers and more job vacancies. Conversely, when activity was moving away from potential (as in Canada in 2023-2024), there were more unemployed workers and fewer job vacancies. Since 1960, this inverse relation between the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate – now called the Beveridge curve – has played a key role in macroeconomic analysis of labour markets. It has been abundantly studied by researchers and has been identified in job vacancy and unemployment data in many countries (e.g., Blanchard and Diamond 1989; Pissarides 2000; Archambault and Fortin 2001; Elsby, Michaels and Ratner 2018; Michaillat and Saez 2021).

It is instructive to examine the trajectory of the Canadian unemployment – job vacancy relation in two-dimensional space from 2015 to 2024 (Figure 4). First, following the 2015 economic slowdown, the economic expansion of 2016-2019 brought a decrease in the unemployment rate and an increase in the job vacancy rate along a path that was consistent with a negatively sloped Beveridge curve. The sudden outbreak of the pandemic in early 2020 shattered this trajectory. The unemployment – job vacancy pair was sent far outward toward the northeast corner of the chart. From then until the end of 2021, it followed a new Beveridge curve to the northwest. During the recovery following the pandemic recession in the spring quarter of 2020, the unemployment rate decreased and the job vacancy rate increased along a path that was about parallel to that of 2015-2019, but at a much higher level. For instance, whereas the unemployment rate was the same in the summer quarter of 2021 as in the winter quarter of 2016 (7.25 percent), the job vacancy rate was twice as large in the former (4.2 percent) as it was in the latter (1.9 percent). Finally, as the pandemic faded, the unemployment – job vacancy pair did a loop to the west. A new post-pandemic Beveridge curve emerged along a southeasterly trend that looked parallel to, but somewhat higher than, the old pre-pandemic path of 2015-2019.2

This visual check reveals that there have been three distinct periods in the inverse relationship between job vacancies and unemployment, known as the Beveridge curve: pre-pandemic, pandemic and post-pandemic. The start and end of the pandemic significantly affected the vertical position of the Beveridge curve in the unemployment – job vacancy space. Although the three branches are not perfectly aligned, they appear to be nearly parallel. According to the statistical results in Table 1 below, a one percent change in the unemployment rate corresponds to about a 1.5 percent change in the opposite direction in the vacancy rate – this is sometimes referred to as the Beveridge curve “elasticity.”

The shifts in the Canadian Beveridge curve during the pandemic are not an entirely unexpected development. Shifts have occurred from time to time in the past.3 As Figure 4 has shown, the Canadian Beveridge curve looked relatively stable before the pandemic in 2016-2019. Figure 5 is an idealized illustration of the position it occupied in the unemployment – job vacancy space in this period. However, starting in 2020, it shifted significantly. It first moved outward during the pandemic in 2020-2021 and then returned inward after the pandemic in 2022-2024.

As an initial assessment of the magnitude of these movements, I use the actual values of unemployment and job vacancies to calculate the implied monthly shifts in the Figure 5 Beveridge curve from January 2016 to October 2024. I then illustrate the implied vertical movements of the job vacancy rate corresponding to a given reference unemployment rate of 5.5 percent4 by averaging the results for each year from 2016 to 2024. The vertical height of the Beveridge curve calculated in this way increased from 2.8 percent in 2019 to nearly 6 percent in 2020-2021, and dropped back to 3.2 percent in 2024 (Figure 6).

The Beveridge curve’s elevation at around 3.2 or 3.3 percent in the post-pandemic period 2023-2024 is higher than its height of 2.8 or 2.9 percent in the pre-pandemic period 2018-2019. This can be attributed to shifts in the ratio of two background factors: the intensity of labour reallocation across occupations, industries and regions, and the efficiency of the matching process between job openings and job seekers (Blanchard, Domash and Summers 2022). At any given rate of unemployment, the job vacancy rate and the Beveridge curve will be higher in relation to the intensity of labour reallocation and the inefficiency of job matching.

The first factor, the intensity of labour reallocation, is captured by the monthly flow of hires as a percentage of the labour force. It is shown as an index with 2019 = 100 in Figure 7. It increased by some 10 percent during the pandemic of 2020-2021. Labour moved from transport industries and those requiring person-to-person contact toward electronic communications and home deliveries. There was a displacement from traditional businesses and occupations to those allowing work from home. However, in 2022-2024 labour reallocation calmed down and its intensity decreased by some 15 percent below its 2019 level. This pushed the Beveridge curve downward.

The second factor, the efficiency of job matching, reflects the capacity of labour markets to generate hires at the observed levels of unemployment and job vacancies. It is an index with 2019 = 100 in Figure 8. It experienced a sharp drop of nearly 20 percent during the pandemic (2020-2021). Factors contributing to this decline include the increasing physical distance between vacant positions and available candidates, as well as the widening gap between the demand for and supply of skills. Also, the rise in illnesses and the increased popularity of remote work during the pandemic likely may have contributed to a decline in job search intensity. As a result, employers found it more difficult to match job offers with suitable job seekers. Matching efficiency did not recover from 2022-2024. It remained some 20 percent below its pre-pandemic level of 2018-2019. This pushed the Beveridge curve upward.

Going from 2019 to 2024, movements in labour reallocation and matching efficiency had opposite effects on the height of the Beveridge curve. But the upward pressure on the curve from the 20 percent drop in matching efficiency was greater than the downward pressure from the 15 percent decline in labour reallocation. Therefore, as already pictured in Figures 4 and 6, the net outcome is that, going over the pandemic, the Beveridge curve wound up at a higher level in 2024 than in 2019, implying a higher job vacancy rate for any given unemployment rate.

So far, I have used the Beveridge relation between job vacancies and unemployment as a broad interpretive framework for macroeconomic developments in Canada over the 2015-2024 period. First, I have focused on the effect of fluctuations in aggregate economic activity (captured by changes in unemployment) on the job vacancy rate. Second, I have noted that the onset and ending of the pandemic have been big shifters of this unemployment – job vacancy trade off upward in 2020-2021 and downward in 2022-2024. Nevertheless, third, I have shown that, mainly due to a persistent 20 percent drop in job matching efficiency since 2019, the Canadian Beveridge curve was occupying a higher vertical position in 2023-2024 than before the pandemic.

In addition to the pandemic, Canada’s immigration policy, characterized by rising immigration levels, is another major development that has impacted labour markets in recent years. Like the pandemic, this policy may have affected the level of the unemployment rate along the Beveridge curve, as well as the vertical position of the curve, through its impacts on labour reallocation and matching efficiency. The following sections try to assess the existence and magnitude of these potential effects of immigration.

Economic Logic

The Beveridge framework can be used to explain how the expansion of immigration in Canada before and after the pandemic could have produced a lasting decrease or increase in labour shortages. Excluding the pandemic’s influence, rising immigration may affect aggregate labour shortages in two mechanical ways: by causing labour markets to slide up or down along the Beveridge curve, or by shifting the entire position of the Beveridge curve upward or downward, resulting in a larger or a smaller number of job vacancies for any given unemployment rate.

The first scenario involves a slide along the Beveridge curve. If rising immigration moves the economy up and to the northwest, unemployment decreases and vacancies increase; if the economy descends to the southeast, unemployment increases and vacancies decrease, as shown in Figure 5.

A permanent increase in unemployment along a given Beveridge curve is not what is generally hoped for by policymakers and the public. We want to achieve a permanent reduction in labour scarcity without being forced to suffer a permanent increase in unemployment. Nevertheless, it is important to understand how rising immigration could impact unemployment permanently, such that a higher or lower unemployment rate would be structurally needed to keep inflation low and stable over time.

A rough check on whether a higher immigration rate has raised or lowered the national unemployment rate consists of seeing if the excess of the national rate over the rate of the experienced group, formed by the Canadian-born plus the immigrants landed more than five years earlier, was higher or lower in 2023 than in 2015. Labour force data indicate that the excess of the national rate over the rate of this experienced group did increase in this period, but by just 0.1 percentage point, owing essentially to the rising labour force share of immigrants landed less than five years earlier. Seen in this light, rising immigration does not seem to have had a meaningful direct effect on structural unemployment. This result is consistent with research by Dion and Dodge (2023), who found no significant change in the national unemployment rate needed to keep inflation stable, known as the noninflationary rate of unemployment, that could be attributed to rising immigration.

It is a relief to see that rising immigration has not entailed a permanent reduction in the job vacancy rate by permanently pushing the national unemployment rate upward. There is evidence, though, that rising immigration has led to greater cyclical volatility of unemployment. First, the phenomenal expansion in the number of new residents since 2021 is known to have contributed to the strong demographic pressure on the demand for housing and, hence, to the significant increase in the cost of rented and owned accommodation. The Bank of Canada has acknowledged that the persistence of high shelter inflation consequently acts “as a material headwind against the return of inflation to the 2 percent target” (Bank of Canada 2024). In other words, through this channel, rising immigration is prolonging the current period of slower growth and higher unemployment. Second, the difference in cyclical sensitivity of the unemployment rate, between the above-defined experienced group and immigrants landed less than five years earlier, seems to have increased. In the economic slowdown during the spring quarter of 2024, the unemployment rate was 4.0 points higher than a year before for immigrants landed less than five years earlier, but only 0.7 point higher for the experienced group. The difference of 3.3 points between them was larger than in the 2009 and 2020 recessions. It could be due in part to the rising share of the low-skilled population of immigrant workers, which is more exposed to layoffs.

This study is primarily concerned with the permanent structural effects of rising immigration on unemployment, which look small, and not with the short-term economic and social costs associated with the greater cyclical volatility of unemployment around its steady state. Nevertheless, the possibility that these short-term costs are real should be kept in mind. Easing labour scarcity by tolerating more unemployment, whether of the short- or long-term variety, is an outcome our policies should try to avoid.

The other way rising immigration may have impacted aggregate labour shortages is by moving the vertical position of the entire Beveridge curve up or down in the unemployment-job vacancy space. Ultimately, we want to know whether rising immigration has increased the job vacancy rate and worsened labour shortages, or whether it has decreased the vacancy rate and alleviated the shortages, at every given level of unemployment.

The combined visual evidence presented by Figures 4 to 8 above implies that the Beveridge curve did shift upward somewhat from the pre-pandemic to the post-pandemic period, particularly due to a persistent 20 percent drop in job matching efficiency. Has rising immigration in Canada contributed to this evolution? Bowlus, Miyairi and Robinson (2016) conducted a longitudinal study of the job search behaviour of immigrants to Canada in 2002-2007. Results imply that heightened immigration may reduce matching efficiency in the short run, as new immigrants often face a lower rate of job offers than natives during their initial integration period. Based on US data, Barnichon and Figura (2015) focused on the two primary determinants of aggregate matching efficiency: worker heterogeneity and labour market segmentation. They pointed out that matching efficiency would decline if workers with a lower-than-average search efficiency became more represented among job seekers, or if the dispersion between tight labour submarkets and slack ones increased. These two conditions would seem to apply to the Canadian context with rising immigration. Lu and Hou (2023) have identified a major shift of immigration toward lower-skilled workers, and a significant relative tightening of labour markets such as construction, accommodation, food, business support services, education, healthcare, and social services. The statistical analysis below will provide a test of whether in recent years rising immigration has in fact shifted the Beveridge curve upward and intensified labour scarcity, or not.

Rising immigration is not the only macroeconomic development that may conceivably have affected aggregate labour shortages in the post-pandemic period. It is entirely conceivable that some of the changes triggered suddenly by the pandemic shock may have persisted into the post-pandemic era. Potentially, the most important of these is the widespread shift to work from home (Aksoy et al. 2023). The pandemic can be seen as a mass natural experiment that brought millions of workers in Canada, and other countries, to suddenly experience more work from home, to value its benefits, and to stick to it thereafter, often with a surprising upside in productivity.

The percentage of Canadian workers aged 15 to 69 who work most of their hours from home was 7 percent in early 2020. It sprang to 41 percent in the great confinement month of April 2020, and then declined as the pandemic evolved and faded out. But it was still holding up around 20 percent in the first half of 2024, which was three times as large as the 7 percent of early 2020.

The large increase in the percentage of Canadians working primarily from home has introduced an increase in worker heterogeneity compared to the pre-2020 period. With more workers satisfied with their work from home, fewer are incentivized to seek new jobs, particularly of the traditional variety. Following the Barnichon and Figura (2015) result, this could partly explain the reduction in job matching efficiency that has so far kept the Beveridge curve at a higher level than otherwise.

The economic logic developed in this section suggests that rising immigration and increased work from home may have contributed to the 20 percent loss of matching efficiency that has kept the post-pandemic height of the Canadian Beveridge curve at a level higher than before the pandemic. (However, fully confirming this hypothesis is beyond the scope of this study).

Statistical Analysis

This section summarizes an analysis of the factors influencing job vacancies in Canada, focusing on immigration and the rise of work-from-home arrangements. Introducing the rate of work from home as a factor is done to verify whether the shift to work from home that was initiated by the pandemic, but persisted in 2022-2024 (Schirle 2024), affected the position of the Beveridge curve.5

The analysis spans six Canadian regions – Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan), Alberta, and British Columbia – across the periods from 2015 to 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2022 to 2024 (post-pandemic).

Table 1 summarizes the key findings of the statistical results. Consistent with expectations, it shows that the Beveridge relationship between vacancies and unemployment is negative, with a precisely estimated elasticity of -1.42 in the two models. The results also show that immigration has been a significant contributor to the rise in job vacancies in Canada. Specifically, Model 1 estimates that a one percentage point increase in the immigration rate is associated with an 8.12 percent increase in the job vacancy rate after one year. It suggests that rising immigration has pushed the Beveridge curve upward, increasing the job vacancy rate at each unemployment rate over the period. However, when accounting for the rise in work-from-home arrangements in Model 2, the effect of immigration is smaller, at 3.21 percent,6 reflecting the additional impact of remote work.7 The positive effect of work-from-home arrangements is estimated at 0.85 percent.

These results suggest that both factors – immigration and remote work – have played a significant role in pushing the Beveridge curve upward, making it more difficult to match available workers with job openings.

While both factors contribute to the rise in job vacancies, their high correlation complicates the ability to isolate their individual effects. The correlation between immigration and remote work is particularly strong, which makes it challenging to assess their independent impacts.8 As a result, the evidence for immigration’s effect on job vacancies in Model 2 is less powerful than it would be if the data allowed sharper estimation.9 However, the findings from Model 2 indicate that the combined effects of both immigration and remote work have contributed to higher job vacancies, suggesting that increasing immigration alone is unlikely to solve labour shortages in the short term.

To be specific, statistical calculation of Model 2 indicates an 82 percent chance that rising immigration has left the job vacancy rate unchanged or raised it, and only an 18 percent chance that it has lowered it.10 In other words, increased immigration is more than four times as likely to have raised the aggregate demand for labour by as much as, or more than, the supply than to have increased it by less than the supply. In short, it is unlikely that rising immigration in Canada has helped the country solve its economy-wide problem of labour shortages by reducing the job vacancy rate at any given unemployment rate.

A natural question is whether the effect of immigration on job vacancies varies between permanent and temporary immigration. So far, an expanded version of Model 2, which distinguishes between these factors by analyzing the permanent and temporary immigration rates separately, has found no significant difference in their four-quarter total effects.11 Future analyses could benefit from disaggregating data by industry, as the impact of immigration and working from home may vary across sectors. For instance, remote work affects sectors like technology differently than it does retail or construction.

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper’s conclusion, drawn from statistical analysis of the macrodata runs, is contrary to the views of business organizations, which have campaigned relentlessly in favour of increases in permanent and temporary economic immigration in the past several years (e.g., Business Council of Canada 2022; Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters 2023; Canadian Federation of Independent Business 2021; Conseil du patronat du Québec 2022). Their position is understandable and grounded in a genuine concern to address labor shortages. By filling the vacancies, economic immigration enables firms to produce more and maintain or increase profitability.

The evidence presented here does not question the important role immigration can play for individual employers, whose need for additional employees is acute and urgent. However, in economics, everything depends on everything. The direction and importance of a phenomenon, confirmed at a microeconomic level with regard to a particular business, government organization, or sector, can be different or even reversed at the macroeconomic level, once all spillovers into the rest of the economy are accounted for. In his 1955 introductory textbook, the renowned American economist Paul Samuelson warned against the risk of the “fallacy of composition,” where it is assumed that what is true for individual parts is automatically true for the whole economy.

In the case of immigration, the fallacy of composition consists of believing that the advantages accruing to employers that hire immigrants can simply be added up and said to extend to the whole economy. What the present study has uncovered is that this belief is not corroborated by the macroeconomic evidence from the recent experience of Canadian regions. It is true that immigration eases up the dearth of personnel in firms that hire newcomers, which is clearly a good thing. But it is also true, conversely, that it worsens the shortage of labour in industries that must cater to the additional demand for goods and services generated by the addition to total GDP. The induced increase in the demand for labour in the aggregate economy can offset or even exceed the initial expansion of supply, so that it contributes to amplify economy-wide labour shortages on net. The insights I have extracted from Canadian regional data suggest that rising immigration has more likely redistributed or increased labour scarcity across the economy than reduced it overall. The political implication is that, if labour shortages persist or increase in the whole of the country despite fast-rising immigration, the insistent demand of business organizations for more immigration will not calm down; labour shortages will persist or intensify.

The vision of immigration as an economy-wide offset to labour scarcity is also reductionist. To take account solely of the hoped-for benefits accruing directly to employers of new immigrants overlooks the fact that immigration is a global and transformative phenomenon. The purpose of immigration is not only to serve the interests of a particular group. It is of concern to a whole society for reasons that are no doubt partly economic, but also demographic, cultural, social, and humanitarian. Society is morally obligated to welcome and integrate all immigrants in the most humane manner. This requires much time and money. Society must also make sure that the pace of immigration is not so fast that it leads ethnic groups to “hunker down” (as Putnam 2007 found) and provokes serious economic disequilibria in sectors that must absorb the induced increase in demand, such as construction, housing, health, education and social services. The overall pace and composition of immigration must balance individual interests against the challenges it brings to society.

Among these costs are the negative potential repercussions on productivity and wage growth stemming from the open-door immigration policy that Canada has followed until recently. Two key implications merit attention. First, investment in housing, business investment to equip newcomers with required physical and human capital, and government investment in public infrastructure to provide social services have not been able to keep pace with fast-rising immigration. Second, the open-door policy has made it easy for employers to rely on low-skilled foreign workers to meet high labour demand, which has been concentrated in low-wage industries (Lu and Hou 2023). While immigration alleviates immediate labour shortages, it may suppress wage increases that would otherwise occur as labour markets tighten and affect capital investments.

For example, in the 12 months leading to 2024Q3, overall wages increased by 4 percent, outpacing inflation at 2 percent, but sectoral differences were stark: wages grew by 3.2 percent in the business sector compared to 6.3 percent in the non-commercial sector. These dynamics suggest that wage growth patterns are influenced by a blend of short-term factors and structural shifts, including immigration trends.

Data also show that business sector labour productivity in Canada is on a slippery slope. From 2021Q3 to 2024Q3, output per hour went down cumulatively by 2.3 percent, whereas it would have gone up by 3.2 percent if it had increased at the same rate as in 1999-2019 (Statistics Canada, table 36-10-0206). While there are many factors behind this slowdown in productivity growth, the high immigration rate may have been a contributor.

In March 2024, the government suddenly announced a reversal of its immigration policy. Immigration Minister Marc Miller committed his department to cutting Canada’s non-permanent resident population from 6.5 percent of the overall population in early 2024 to 5 percent in early 2027. In November, details of the plan were set in the 2024 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration (Government of Canada 2024, Annex 4). There would be 446,000 fewer entries of new non-permanent residents than exits in each of 2025 and 2026. Annual temporary immigration would be negative to this extent. The Annual Report also announced that the annual target for admissions to permanent immigration would be reduced from 485,000 in 2024 to 395,000 in 2025, 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027.

If implemented as intended, scaling back the number of temporary and permanent immigrants will impact Canada’s aggregate labour supply significantly in 2025-2027. The working-age (15-64) population will stagnate instead of increasing by 800,000 or more, as it did in each of 2023 and 2024. An implication of the evidence reported above in Table 1 is that labour demand will likely decline alongside the reduction in labour supply because there will be 800,000 fewer consumers in the Canadian economy. While this policy reversal may not directly address the job vacancy rate, it could reduce vacancies by decreasing the overall demand for labour. As a result, while Canada’s aggregate GDP may contract, GDP per capita could increase, particularly if a smaller portion of national savings is directed toward demographic investments and the composition of immigration shifts toward fewer low-skilled immigrants.

The government’s policy reversal is a first step toward moderation. While it presents challenges, it also offers opportunities for improvement. When employers do not have the luxury of recruiting a rising stream of newcomers who are willing to accept low wages, it may push them to invest more in technology and work reorganization, and hence increase productivity. Furthermore, with a more moderate immigration level, the issue of the lack of absorptive capacity in the economy to provide enough skill-equivalent jobs to high-skilled immigrants will be less acute. Immigrants will see their skill utilization increase and their overqualification rate decrease. This shift could enhance Canada’s ability to attract global talent, aligning with the 2016 recommendation from the Advisory Council on Economic Growth that immigration should help address the shortage of high-skilled workers.

Appendix: Statistical Methodology and Data

This appendix provides a detailed description of the statistical analysis conducted to assess the factors influencing the job vacancy rate in Canada. The analysis spans 27 non-pandemic quarters, covering two periods: 2015Q2 to 2019Q4 (pre-pandemic) and 2022Q4 to 2024Q3 (post-pandemic). It includes data from six Canadian regions – Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan), Alberta, and British Columbia. Each of these regions has a population of more than 2 million.

The dataset consists of 162 observations, representing the six regions across the 27 quarters. All labour market and population data are sourced from publicly available Statistics Canada tables. The job vacancy rate and unemployment rate are expressed as ratios of seasonally adjusted job vacancies and unemployment to the labour force. These variables are logarithmically transformed to account for the convexity of the Beveridge curve.

To estimate the relationship between job vacancies and its key determinants, two regression models are specified:

• Model 1 includes the unemployment rate, the immigration rate (measured as the total number of new permanent immigrants and net additional non-permanent residents relative to the population, annualized), and three unconstrained lagged values of the immigration rate.

• Model 2 builds upon Model 1 by including the rate of work from home as an additional explanatory variable. The work-from-home rate is the fraction of workers aged 15 to 69 who work most of their hours from home in their main jobs. This model tests whether the pandemic-induced shift to remote work, which persisted post-pandemic, has affected the Beveridge curve and the job vacancy rate.

Both models incorporate regional and seasonal fixed effects to account for regional disparities and seasonal fluctuations in the labour market.

For the Silo, Pierre Fortin.

The author is grateful to Mario Fortin, Gilles Grenier, Jeremy Kronick, Nicolas Marceau, Parisa Mahboubi, Pascal Michaillat, Mario Polèse, Statistics Canada data analysts, Mikal Skuterud, Daniel Schwanen, Christopher Worswick and several anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions. The author retains responsibility for any errors and the views expressed.

References

Advisory Council on Economic Growth. 2016. “The Path to Prosperity: Resetting Canada’s Growth Trajectory.” Report of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth to the Minister of Finance of Canada. October.

Ahn, Hie Joo, and Leland Crane. 2020. “Dynamic Beveridge curve accounting.” Finance and Economic Discussion Series 2020-27. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington. March.

Aksoy, Cevat Giray, Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom, Steven Davis, Mathias Dolls and Pablo Zarate. 2023. “Working from home around the world.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2022, 281-330.

Archambault, Richard, and Mario Fortin. 2001. “The Beveridge Curve and Unemployment Fluctuations in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Economics 34(1): 58-81.

Bank of Canada. 2024. Monetary Policy Report. Ottawa, January.

Barlevy, Gadi, Jason Faberman, Bart Hobijn and Ayşegül Şahin. 2024. “The Shifting Reasons for Beveridge Curve Shifts.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 38(2): 83-106.

Barnichon, Régis, and Andrew Figura. 2015. “Labor market Heterogeneity and the Aggregate Matching Function.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 7(4): 222-249.

Beveridge, William. 1960. Full Employment in a Free Society. Second edition. London: Allen & Unwin.

Blanchard, Olivier, and Peter Diamond. 1989. “The Beveridge Curve.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1)1-67.

Blanchard, Olivier, Alex Domash, and Lawrence Summers. 2022. “Bad news for the Fed from the Beveridge space.” Policy Brief. Peterson Institute for International Economics. July.

Bok, Brandyn, Nicolas Petrosky-Nadeau, Robert Valetta, and Mary Yilma. 2022. “Finding a soft landing along the Beveridge curve.” Economic Letter. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. August.

Bowlus, Audra, Masashi Miyairi and Chris Robinson. 2016. “Immigrant job search assimilation in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Economics 49(1): 5-52.

Business Council of Canada. 2022. Report on Canada’s Immigration Advantage. Ottawa, June. At Canada’s immigration advantage | Business Council of Canada (thebusinesscouncil.ca)

Canadian Federation of Independent Business. 2021. “Using Immigration Programs to Overcome Labour Shortage Problems.” Ottawa. May. At Using immigration programs to overcome labour shortage problems | CFIB (cfib-fcei.ca)

Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. 2023. Manufacturing Canada’s Future. Ottawa, November. At 2023-CME-Report-Manufacturing-Canadas-Future_Final-2_web.pdf (cme-mec.ca)

C.D. Howe Institute. 2024. “Graphic of the week: Canada’s plan to cut non-permanent residents by 30 percent by early 2027.” At Graph of the Week: Canada’s Plan to Cut Non-Permanent Residents by 30 Percent by Early 2027 | C.D. Howe Institute | Canada Economy News | Canadian Government Policy (cdhowe.org)

Century Initiative. 2024. “Canada’s Immigration Reality Check.” In National Scorecard on Canada’s Growth and Prosperity. Ottawa. November. At 665f8b1d9f801b398e1926db_Century Initiative Full Report 2024 – EN.pdf (website-files.com)

Conseil du patronat du Québec. 2022. Livre blanc sur l’immigration: Portait et solutions. Montréal, May. At Livre blanc sur l’immigration – Portrait et solutions | Conseil du patronat du Québec (cpq.qc.ca)

Dion, Richard, and David Dodge. 2023. “Labour force growth and labour market gap in Canada: 2011 to 2032.” Working Paper. Ottawa: Bennett Jones, May.

Doyle, Matthew, Mikal Skuterud and Christopher Worswick. 2024. Optimizing Immigration for Economic Growth. Commentary No. 662. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Elsby, Michael, Ryan Michaels and David Ratner. 2015. “The Beveridge Curve: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Literature 53(3): 571-630.

Fortin, Pierre.2024. “Does immigration help alleviate economy-wide labour shortages?” Working Paper #70, Canadian Labour Economics Forum, University of Waterloo. May.

Government of Canada. 2024. 2024 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. October.

Hazell, Jonathon, Juan Herreño, Emi Nakamura, and Jón Steinsson. 2022. “The Slope of the Phillips Curve: Evidence from US states.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 137(3): 1299-1344.

Lam, Alexander. 2022. “Canada’s Beveridge curve and the outlook for the labour market.” Staff Analytical Note 2022-18, Bank of Canada, Ottawa. November.

Lu, Yuqian, and Feng Hou. 2023. “Foreign workers in Canada: distribution of paid employment by industry.” Economic and Social Reports. Catalogue No. 36-28-0001. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. December.

Mahboubi, Parisa, and William Robson. 2018. “Inflated Expectations: More Immigrants Can’t Solve Canada’s Aging Problem on Their Own.” E-Brief. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Michaillat, Pascal, and Emmanuel Saez. 2021. “Beveridgean unemployment gap.” Journal of Public Economics Plus 2. December.

Morissette, René, Vincent Hardy and Voltek Zolkiewski. 2023. “Working most hours from home: new estimates for January to April 2022.” Analytical Studies Branch Research Papers Series. Catalogue no. 11F0019M, No. 472. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. July.

Pissarides, Christopher. 2000. Equilibrium Unemployment Theory. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Putnam, Robert. 2007. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2): 137-174.

Romer, Christina, and David Romer. 2019. “NBER business cycle dating: Retrospect and prospect.” Paper prepared for the session “NBER and the Evolution of Economic Research, 1920–2020” at the ASSA Annual Meeting, San Diego, California, January 2020. Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.

Samuelson, Paul. 1955. Economics: An Introductory Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schirle, Tammy. 2024. “Settling into a New Normal? Working from Home across Canada.” E-Brief. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Shimer, Robert. 2012. “Reassessing the Ins and Outs of Unemployment.” Review of Economic Dynamics 15(2): 127-148.

Statistics Canada. 2024. Job vacancies, third quarter 2023. January 18. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/240118/dq240118c-eng.pdf?st=36gTb__Z

What Can Be Done About Canada’s Debt Problem?

Presenters at last year’s C.D. Howe Institute’s conference on Canada’s debt problem had some pointed advice for our federal and provincial governments:

  • Canada’s public debt should be reduced about 10 percentage points of Canada’s GDP to ensure fiscal policy can be used to cushion the effects of future economic crises. Since major crises happen frequently, prudence suggests that the target should be achieved before the decade is out.
  • Tax increases harm economic performance, so elimination of public spending that does not provide enough benefits to offset this damage should be the first step in reducing deficits and debt. This will require undertaking comprehensive value-for-money assessments to identify wasteful spending.
  • Post-conference analysis found that achieving this prudent debt target would require increasing the combined federal-provincial primary balance by 1.4 percent of GDP, or $43 billion, starting in 2025/26. This amount includes a buffer – ensuring an 80 percent probability of meeting the debt target – to account for inevitable economic downturns, other crises that raise deficits and debt, and the uncertainty posed by fluctuating interest rates on financing costs.
  • The conference was one of four on deficits and debt held in Canada over the past 40 years. A clear and consistent message from these conferences – which politicians have yet to fully absorb – is that debt has economic costs and, therefore, imposes a burden on future generations. In this Commentary, the authors report on, and offer their analysis of, the findings of the latest conference.

Introduction

Does Canada have a debt problem? The answer from a recent C.D. Howe Institute conference is a resounding “yes.” Canada’s public debt should be about 10 percentage points of GDP lower to ensure sustainability. Given that major crises, which put upward pressure on deficits and debt, happen frequently, this target should be achieved before the decade is out.

The May 2024 conference was one of four on deficits and debt held in Canada over the past 40 years. Each aimed to provide guidance to policymakers on managing deficits and debt. While a common thread was concern about the economic cost of public debt, each conference provided context-specific policy advice.

The first conference, “Deficits: How Big and How Bad?” (Conklin and Courchene 1983), occurred when debt levels were rising rapidly but still relatively low. The key policy issue then was whether fiscal consolidation or expansion to support the economy was appropriate.

In the 1994 conference, “Deficit Reduction – What Pain, What Gain?” (Robson and Scarth 1994), and the 2002 conference, “Is the Debt War Over?” (Ragan and Watson 2004), there were clear recommendations to reduce debt levels. In 1994, this was motivated by concerns over economic damage caused by debt approaching 100 percent of GDP and questions about fiscal sustainability. By 2002, although the debt ratio had fallen substantially, further debt reduction was still advocated to reduce the burden on future generations who will not benefit from the spending.

A combination of discretionary measures and sustained economic growth led to a substantial reduction in the combined federal-provincial debt ratio from 2002 until the global financial crisis of 2007-2009. The debt ratio stabilized at a relatively high level after the crisis until the pandemic. The massive increase in debt during the pandemic and subsequent government spending raised the overall federal-provincial net debt ratio to about 75 percent of GDP, nearing levels from the time of the “Debt War” conference. This surge, combined with concerns about further increases, refocused attention on debt sustainability. This concern was reflected in the May conference, “Does Canada Have a Debt Problem?”, which recommended a debt target based on the need for fiscal prudence.

The latest conference included sessions on the economic costs of debt, the sustainability of federal debt, guidance for policymakers on a prudent and fair debt target, and reforming the federal fiscal framework. However, given the one-day format, not all issues could be thoroughly addressed. This report not only summarizes the proceedings but also fills some gaps by providing additional analysis to complement the presenters’ advice.

Economic Costs of Public Debt

Interest expenses were central to the analysis by University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe of the economic costs of public debt. Interest paid on the public debt is often considered a transfer among individuals with no real impact on the economy. However, higher interest payments for a given level of program spending necessitate higher taxes, which harm economic performance by affecting incentives to work, save and invest. If not financed by tax increases, higher interest payments will crowd out valued program spending.

When discussing the opportunity cost of interest payments – the benefits of lower tax rates or higher program spending – Tombe cited work by Dahlby and Ferede (2022). They estimate the economic cost of raising an extra dollar of tax revenue, referred to as the “marginal cost of public funds” (MCPF). The MCPF includes both the dollar taken from the private sector and the loss in output per dollar of tax revenue raised due to reduced incentives to work, save and invest. Higher taxes shrink the tax base not only because of reduced economic activity but also due to efforts to reduce taxable income without changing economic behaviour.

Dahlby and Ferede (2022) find a very high cost from raising taxes. For the corporate income tax, the federal MCPF in 2021 was approximately two.1The MCPF from raising the top federal personal income tax rate has been higher than its corporate tax counterpart since 2012, when the corporate tax rate was reduced to 15 percent. The gap increased in 2016 when the top federal marginal personal income tax rate increased to 33 percent, pushing the MCPF to about 2.9.

The federal government expects to pay $54.1 billion in public debt charges in the current fiscal year. The economic cost of these payments is substantial. If the opportunity cost of these payments is lower corporate income taxes, their economic cost would also be about $54 billion. If their opportunity cost is a lower top personal income tax rate, their economic cost would exceed $100 billion. If the contribution from corporate income and top personal income tax were equal, the economic cost would be about $75 billion.

Other costs of public debt arise from a reduction in the national savings rate, which is the sum of public and private sector savings rates. Government deficits represent public sector dissaving, so with a constant private savings rate, national savings will decline when governments run deficits. Tombe highlighted the impact of lower national savings on investment, presenting data showing a negative correlation between debt ratios and investment ratios across countries (Figure 1). He stated there is “probably” a causal relationship between higher debt ratios and lower investment ratios.

Although Tombe did not elaborate, there are reasons to be circumspect about asserting causality. One reason is that the private savings rate may rise in response to budget deficits if economic agents anticipate higher future taxes to service the debt. Households might increase savings in anticipation, partially offsetting the decline in national savings. There is evidence that expansionary fiscal policy is partially offset by increased household savings. Johnson (2004) concluded that household savings would increase by 30-50 percent of the increase in government debt. In a recent study of fiscal expansions in the Euro area from 1999 to 2019, Checherita-Westphal and Stechert (2021) found that 19 percent of a fiscal stimulus is offset by higher household savings in the short-term, rising to 41 percent in the long-term.

Another reason for being cautious about inferring causality is that in an open economy, a decline in national savings does not necessarily lead to lower domestic investment, as any shortfall can be offset by borrowing from abroad. However, interest payments on borrowed funds and the return on foreign-owned capital reduce national income. An additional cost arises because the resulting current account deterioration must be offset by higher net exports, which requires a reduction in real wages in the export sector.

To complement Tombe’s analysis, we present an estimate of the economic cost of reduced national savings. In a closed economy with constant household savings, a budget deficit leads to a dollar-for-dollar crowding out of investment. Using historical returns on capital and assuming that national savings decline by 60 percent of the deficit due to offsetting increases in household savings, the $1,372 billion in federal net debt in the current fiscal year would have an economic cost of about $90 billion.2 This calculation does not capture the impact of lower capital intensity on productivity, so it underestimates the true cost.

If foreign savings offset the decline in national savings and foreigners invest directly in Canada, they receive the return on this capital, so the gross economic cost remains the same. However, the return is subject to corporate income tax, so the net economic cost would be about 25 percent lower. If Canadian firms borrow abroad to finance domestic investment, the economic cost is the interest paid to foreigners. While gross interest payments to foreigners will be less than the return on capital unless there is a large country-risk premium, interest payments are taxed more lightly.3 Therefore, the net economic cost may not differ substantially.

An additional cost of accessing foreign savings arises because higher capital servicing charges put downward pressure on the current account balance, which must be offset by an increase in net exports. In a small economy, export and import prices are determined in world markets, so the increase in net exports requires a decline in real wages in the export sector. However, if a country’s exports have unique features, increased supply can lower export prices, adding to the economic cost of borrowing from abroad (Burgess 1996).

Calculating the economic cost of investment crowding out when foreign borrowing is possible as the net-of-tax return on capital paid to foreigners establishes a minimum cost because it excludes the reductions in real wages required to increase net exports. The minimum cost would, therefore, be 0.75 x $90 billion = $68 billion, where the $90 billion reflects the economic cost of lower investment, adjusted by a factor of 0.75 to represent corporate income taxes on the returns paid to foreign investors. The $75 billion cost associated with raising taxes to finance higher federal interest expenses does not change with the availability of foreign financing, so the overall cost of the federal debt is approximately $142 billion, or 4.7 percent of GDP in 2024/25.

A similar calculation can be performed for overall provincial debt. In 2021/22, provincial net debt amounted to $784.7 billion, with debt service charges of $30.6 billion. Using the same weighted average economic cost of taxation as for the federal government, the economic cost of provincial debt service charges was $42 billion. The cost of investment crowding out adds another $39 billion, bringing the total cost of debt at the provincial level to $81 billion, or 3.2 percent of GDP in 2021/22. Assuming provincial debt remains at the same percentage of GDP from 2021/22 to 2024/25, the overall cost of Canada’s debt is about 8 percent of GDP.

Benefits of Debt and Its Optimal Level

Tombe also discussed the benefits of public debt, noting its role in financing long-lived assets, stabilizing the economy and smoothing tax rates over time. Governments should borrow to finance investments that will benefit future generations and should finance current expenditures out of current taxes. Spending on education, health and knowledge creation raises special concerns because it benefits both current and future generations. However, since each generation must make these investments, financing them through current revenues typically aligns with the benefit principle.

Counter-cyclical fiscal policy enhances social well-being by mitigating costly deviations from full employment. Additionally, governments can reduce the harmful effects of distortionary taxes by keeping them stable. Since the efficiency cost of taxes is higher when rates are above average than when rates are below average,4 governments should set tax rates at levels sufficient to support expected spending over the cycle and allow deficits to rise and fall in response to unexpected expenditures.5

An issue absent from discussions at the conference was the role of public debt in addressing market imperfections, which can improve efficiency. One such imperfection is the lack of adequate insurance markets against individual-specific wage income losses. As a result, individuals “self-insure” by increasing savings, which is more costly than paying the premiums in a well-functioning insurance market. Public debt puts upward pressure on interest rates and provides a safe savings instrument, allowing households to reduce their savings closer to the efficient level.

Unlike the efficiency gains from using public debt to stabilize the economy and smooth tax rates, mitigating the impact of inadequate insurance markets may justify a permanent increase in public debt. With a well-functioning insurance market, the optimal public debt ratio would be negative – governments should be net savers rather than net debtors. This would allow governments to finance expenditures from interest received on assets rather than from distortionary taxes.6

Empirical issues raised by the inadequate insurance-market approach include whether correcting the market failure is sufficient to make the optimal debt ratio positive and whether the penalty for deviating from the optimal ratio is significant enough to affect the choice of a debt target. Early analyses of incomplete markets found a positive optimal debt ratio. For instance, Aiyagari and McGrattan (1998) calculated an optimal debt ratio of 66 percent of GDP for the US economy. However, Peterman and Sager (2018), using a model with many of the same features as Aiyagari and McGrattan but incorporating multiple generations with standard life cycles instead of a single generation with an infinite life span, found that net government saving is optimal in the US economy. The main reason for the different result is that individuals in a life-cycle model spend a substantial fraction of their working lives accumulating enough savings to make self-insurance possible, so the benefit from self-insurance is smaller than if infinite life spans are assumed.

These results are less relevant for Canada for two reasons. First, employment insurance and other income support measures are more generous in Canada, so self-insurance leading to excess saving is less of an issue. Second, the US analysis assumes deficits are financed entirely by domestic savings, which is a much less realistic assumption for Canada. Foreign borrowing reduces the optimal debt ratio because it lessens the upward pressure on interest rates, which diminishes the impact of public debt on “self-insurance” savings and raises the cost of debt. James and Karam (2001) modified the Aiyagari and McGrattan model to allow borrowing from abroad, which changes the optimal debt ratio from 66 percent to about -80 percent. This qualitative result – that access to foreign savings reduces the optimal debt ratio – has been confirmed by other researchers (Nakajima and Takahashi 2017; Okamoto 2024; and Cozzi 2022).

This review suggests that the inadequate-markets approach does not reverse the conclusion from standard models that the optimal debt ratio is negative, implying that welfare gains can be realized when debt levels are reduced. However, the studies reviewed indicate that the penalty for deviating from the optimal debt ratio is small. In three of the six optimal debt studies reviewed, it is possible to compare the estimated economic costs. In the Peterman/Sager and Nakajima/Takahashi studies, a one-percentage-point increase in the debt ratio reduces consumption by .003 percent. The corresponding figure in the Cozzi study is much higher, approximately .02 percent. These estimates are very low relative to the estimates presented earlier, which imply a loss of .05 percent per percentage-point increase in the debt ratio.

It seems likely that these models are substantially understating the cost of debt. The benefits would have to be understated by an even larger percentage to overturn the conclusion that governments should be creditors not debtors. Since the argument for incurring debt to improve market efficiency is weak, the debt ratio should be chosen by considering only its impact on generational fairness. However, since debt is one of several factors affecting generational transfers, debt policy may have to deviate from the benefit principle to achieve a desired balance of the well-being of current and future generations.

Sustainability Analysis

High debt also raises concerns about its prudence or sustainability: can the interest expense be financed without requiring tax increases or cuts in program spending in the future? In his presentation, Alex Laurin, the Institute’s Vice President and Director of Research, challenged the federal budget’s claim that federal public finances are sustainable (Canada 2024, 382). The federal government’s sustainability claim is based on long-term projections showing a continuously declining debt-to-GDP ratio, reaching nine percent by 2055/56. Moreover, this trend holds even with less optimistic assumptions about interest rates and economic growth.

Laurin argued that this projection is not a convincing demonstration of sustainability for three reasons:

1) Interest Rate Assumptions: In the base case, the effective interest rate on federal debt (r) remains below the growth rate of the economy (g) for 32 years, which puts continuous downward pressure on the debt ratio. This assumption is inconsistent with the historical record. Over the past 35 and 45 years ending in 2022/23, averages of r-g are positive, at 0.8 and 0.4 percentage points, respectively. Only when the averaging period is extended back to include the high-inflation period starting in the 1970s does the multi-year average turn negative.7

2) Program Spending Assumptions: While revenues are assumed to grow in line with GDP, program spending decreases by about one percentage point of GDP over the projection period, causing the primary surplus to rise and putting downward pressure on the debt ratio. A more realistic “no policy change” assumption would keep the share of program spending roughly constant, allowing an assessment of the sustainability of current spending levels.

3) Exclusion of Economic Downturns: The projection fails to explicitly include economic downturns. Over the last 60 years, Canada has experienced five recessions, each prompting discretionary temporary stimulus measures that permanently increased debt. The policy response averaged 1.09 percentage points of potential GDP for each percentage point deviation from potential GDP (Table 1).

Laurin presented an alternative debt projection, assuming that overall program spending grows in line with GDP from 2029/30 to 2055/56 and that r equals g on average over the projection period.8 With these changes, the decline in the federal debt ratio is less pronounced, reaching 29 percent in 2055/56 compared to 9 percent in the budget projection.

Economic downturns were included in the projection by simulating 1,000 random probabilistic scenarios – assuming the frequency and magnitude of recessions over the past 60 years are representative of the future. Laurin assessed debt sustainability by calculating the probability that the debt ratio remains at or falls below its initial value over the projection period.9 The simulations showed an even chance that the debt ratio will exceed its 2028/29 value late in the projection period. Under the International Monetary Fund’s classification (IMF 2022), Canada’s federal debt would be considered unsustainable.

Some conference participants suggested that Laurin’s analysis might not fully capture the risks associated with the federal fiscal position because it assesses a single r-g profile. They also emphasized the importance of including provincial and territorial governments in any sustainability analysis, as these levels are most affected by demographic aging.

For this report, Laurin modified his approach to include provincial and territorial governments’ net debt and to capture the risks of r-g deviating from its assumed zero average over the long term. He introduced variability in the interest-rate growth-rate gap based on historical data, allowing for a more comprehensive risk assessment (methods and assumptions are provided in Appendix).

The modified analysis showed that, without any simulated shocks, the combined federal and provincial/territorial net debt-to-GDP ratio initially declines and then stabilizes until 2041/42, when rising healthcare costs due to demographic aging – and the associated interest on provincial debt – cause it to rise steadily (Figure 2, black dashed line). Introducing interest rate and recession shocks significantly alters the outlook, indicating a 50 percent chance that the debt ratio will begin its long-term rise in 2035/36, eventually surpassing 100 percent of GDP (black dotted line). There is a 20 percent chance (the 80th percentile) that the debt ratio will not decrease substantially from its current level and start a steady increase in 2033/34 (grey dotted line). Conversely, there is only a 20 percent chance (the 20th percentile) that the ratio will stay below its near-term value for the entire projection period (gold dotted line).

A Prudent and Fair Target

Prudence

According to McGill economist Christopher Ragan, the main concern about Canada’s high public debt is that it will reduce our ability to borrow to address the next economic crisis. He analysed this issue using three zones for the debt ratio: red (top), yellow (middle) and green (bottom) (Figure 3). The red (top) zone, which represents unsustainable debt, starts roughly five percentage points below the 1995 federal-provincial debt ratio’s peak of 100 percent, when Canada entered a period of “forced austerity.” This entry point to the red (top) zone is higher than the 90 percent threshold for negative effects on growth developed by Reinhart and Rogoff (2010). However, the threshold would be lower if the interest rate on public debt (r) were higher than the rate of economic growth (g).

Ragan argued that the current combined federal-provincial debt-to-GDP ratio is in the yellow (middle) “cautionary” zone. The height of this zone is determined by the buffer required to avoid being pushed into the red (top) zone by an economic crisis. Entering the red (top) zone would mean sharply higher interest rates and lower growth.

To avoid this, Ragan set the buffer at 28 percentage points of GDP, about a quarter more than the increase in the debt ratio during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the frequency of economic crises, he advocated returning to the green (bottom) zone by 2029/30, nine years after the end of the pandemic-induced recession. This requires reducing the federal-provincial debt ratio by about 10 percentage points.

Laurin followed up by determining the fiscal effort required to return to the green (bottom) zone with high probability. His calculations show that, starting in the next fiscal year (2025/26), the combined federal-provincial primary balance would need to increase permanently by 1.38 percent of GDP – or $42.9 billion in 2025/26.10 If implemented through spending reductions, provincial spending would have to decline by about 7 percent, or federal spending would have to fall by almost 9 percent. Note that such spending reductions would still not fully return the combined federal-provincial program spending/GDP ratio to its pre-pandemic 2018/19 value. The federal government could achieve the same effect by raising the GST to 8.5 percent. However, since most spending pressures from an aging population are on provincial governments, it would be sound policy for the federal government to transfer tax points to provincial governments (Kim and Dougherty 2020). Even with near-term fiscal adjustment, additional consolidation may be necessary in the future to prevent a rise in the debt/GDP ratio.

Ragan favoured achieving the debt target through expenditure restraint rather than raising taxes, which he thinks may have reached their limit. Restraining expenditures will be particularly challenging given medium-term pressures from an aging society, rising military and security needs, and potentially increased public investments for the transition to a green economy. Canada, therefore, needs an ongoing and thorough program review to identify low-priority spending.

Fairness

Financing current government spending with debt is generally considered fair if the debt-to-GDP ratio is constant or declining over time, implying that future generations can receive the same level of government services without facing higher tax rates. However, stable tax rates alone are insufficient to prevent intergenerational transfers. Taxes must increase to finance the interest on the debt or remain higher than they would be otherwise. If the tax increase applies to both current and future generations, tax rates would be stable but higher than they would be without the increased debt. The higher tax rates required to finance debt interest and the deficit-induced reduction in national-savings transfer part of the cost of government spending to future generations who do not benefit from the spending.

Assessing generational fairness requires understanding the extent of intergenerational transfers resulting from fiscal policy. The presentation by Parisa Mahboubi, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Institute, offered insights into this issue using generational accounts. These accounts show lifetime net taxes imposed by federal and provincial governments for each birth cohort from 1923 to 2023 and for a composite future generation consisting of all persons born after 2023. The lifetime tax burdens of the 2023 birth cohort and future generations are comparable because a complete life cycle is captured in both cases. Her analysis shows that future generations are expected to face a slightly higher lifetime net tax burden than the youngest living generation.

Preparing generational accounts requires information on lifetime taxes and transfers for each birth cohort alive today and for future generations. Projected values of taxes paid by current birth cohorts are developed based on age-specific profiles of different types of taxes,11 assuming unchanged tax policies. Spending on health, education, elderly benefits, child benefits, social assistance and GST credits vary by age, while other government expenditures are evenly distributed per capita. Per capita taxes, transfers and expenditures are assumed to grow at the same rate as productivity.

The lifetime net tax burdens for currently alive birth cohorts are calculated as the present value of projected tax payments less the present value of projected government transfers the cohort will receive. Lifetime net tax burdens of future generations are calculated using the “no free lunch” constraint: someone, sometime, must pay for all that the government spends (US Congressional Budget Office 1995). The lifetime net tax burden of future generations equals the amount of future spending not paid by currently alive generations.12

In the baseline scenario, productivity grows 0.94 percent annually, the average GDP per capita growth from 2002 to 2022. The discount rate is the average return on real return bonds over the same period, 1.3 percent.13 Statistics Canada’s medium-growth scenario14 is used for demographic projections, with population growing at an average annual rate of 0.85 percent over the 100-year projection, driven entirely by net immigration. The ratio of those over 65 to those aged 18-65 – the old-age dependency ratio – more than doubles over the projection period, rising from 30 percent to 72 percent (Figure 4).

The increase in the old-age dependency ratio drives upward trends in elderly benefits and health-related expenditures as a share of GDP. Other categories of age-specific spending remain roughly constant.

In the baseline scenario, the lifetime net tax burden of future generations (“unborn”) exceeds that of the cohort born in 2023 (“newborn”) by $23,000 per person (Figure 5). Factors influencing this result include:15

  • Fiscal Position in the Base Year: In 2023, federal and provincial tax revenues exceeded program spending by over one percent of GDP. A smaller primary surplus would have decreased the lifetime net tax burden of the newly born, increasing the burden on the unborn.
  • Population Growth: Faster population growth reduces the relative tax burden on future generations by slowing the rise in the old-age dependency ratio and reducing the per-capita burden of existing debt.
  • Healthcare Costs: If real healthcare costs increase faster than productivity growth, the recently born will pay a smaller share, leaving more for future generations.

The baseline assumptions represent the midpoint of a range of plausible values. While results are sensitive to changes in assumptions, the baseline is considered the most likely outcome. The generational accounts, therefore, suggest that fiscal policy is generationally fair.

However, other factors must be considered when assessing fairness:

  • Population Stability: If there were no net population growth, the tax burden on future generations would be much higher, even if the old-age dependency ratio did not change, because the cost of existing debt would be spread over a smaller population. This observation draws attention to the fact that future generations will be paying for services they did not receive, even with stable lifetime net taxes.
  • Income Growth: Future generations will likely be richer due to productivity growth, which could justify asking them to bear some costs of current consumption. However, parents may not wish to pass on costs to their children, even if incomes are rising over time. Population growth through immigration substantially reduces intergenerational linkages, which could encourage the current generation to increase the target size of intergenerational transfers.
  • New Spending Pressures: The generational accounts do not capture new pressures like rising military and security commitments or higher spending to achieve a net-zero emissions economy. In both cases, underspending in the past has pushed costs into the future. Pre-funding some of this spending by increasing taxes in the near term would even out contributions across generations.
  • Comparisons with Near Term Future Generations: Generational accounts compare a representative future generation with the most recent birth cohort. Comparing the tax burden of living generations with the burden on near-term future generations is also relevant.

While the generational accounts indicate that the federal-provincial fiscal stance is fair to future generations under current assumptions, it is beneficial to supplement this analysis with assessments over shorter time horizons. For example, virtually all living generations benefited from the debt-financed income stabilization and health measures implemented during the pandemic-induced recession. There is a strong fairness argument for paying down pandemic-related debt before the next generation starts working and paying taxes, which would occur over the 2035-to-2045 period (Lester 2021).

Federal and provincial Covid-related spending amounted to approximately $430 billion from 2020/21 to 2022/23.16 Federal and provincial debt was $2,092 million in 2022/23. Reducing the level of debt to $1,660 million no later than 2045/46 would be fair to generations born in 2019 and later. However, in Laurin’s prudent scenario, in which debt is sustainable with 80 percent probability, the level of debt rises continuously over the projection period. The gap between the prudent and fair level of debt is $1,200 million in 2035/36. Achieving a fair level of debt would require more fiscal consolidation than is needed to achieve sustainability.

Reforming Expenditure Management

Ragan’s debt target and the recommendation to achieve it through expenditure restraint raise two issues:

1) Building Consensus: How to build a consensus on the proposed debt target and increase the likelihood of achieving it.

2) Identifying Savings: How to identify programs that don’t provide enough value to justify raising taxes to finance them.

Economist and C.D. Howe Institute Fellow-in-Residence John Lester emphasized that achieving a political consensus on a more prudent fiscal approach requires vigorous and sustained advocacy. Part of this advocacy involves convincing governments to surrender some policy flexibility to increase the odds of achieving the target reduction in debt and reduce the risk of relapse after the next crisis.

Lester and Laurin (2023) propose a principles-based fiscal governance framework intended to reduce the bias toward deficit financing in both good times and bad. Governments should adopt guiding principles for fiscal policy, set operational rules for achieving target outcomes and transparently assess consistency with these principles.

At the conference, Lester expanded upon one element of the governance framework: a binding multi-year ceiling on non-cyclical spending. A key motivation for this proposal is the failure to adhere to spending tracks set out in budgets and fiscal updates. For example, in the federal government’s 2019 Economic and Fiscal Update, program spending was projected to decline as a share of GDP, reaching 13.8 percent by 2024/25. The spending ratio projected for 2024/25 increased in successive budgets so that in 2024-25 it will be almost 2 percentage points higher than projected in 2019.18

Binding multi-year expenditure ceilings apply in 11 OECD member countries (Moretti, Keller, and Majercak 2023).19 In the Netherlands and Switzerland, the ceilings are set out in legislation that constrains expenditure growth. Alberta has recently adopted a similar approach.20 However, in most countries, expenditure ceilings are set by the government to ensure consistency with its self-defined fiscal objectives, which may or may not include expenditure restraint. This is the general approach recommended for Canada, although the hope is that the self-defined objective will be to achieve the debt target through expenditure restraint.

The expenditure ceiling would be binding for five years, ideally developed in the first year of a new electoral mandate after a campaign outlining spending plans in detail. The ceiling would cover all categories of spending directly affected by policy decisions. It would be updated annually to account for forecasting errors in program determinants (e.g., inflation, population growth). There would be escape clauses for major economic recessions, natural disasters and war. The ceiling could include a reserve for new policy initiatives, but in the context of expenditure restraint new initiatives may need to be funded by eliminating or modifying existing programs.

Identifying the programs that should be scaled back or eliminated because they don’t provide enough benefits to justify raising taxes to finance them requires, according to Lester, an overhaul of the way the government manages its spending, particularly the performance management framework that is key to establishing value for money. Yves Giroux set the stage for this discussion by describing the federal government’s current expenditure management system.

The requirement to evaluate programs was formalized following the creation of the Office of the Comptroller General in 1978. Despite several modifications, program evaluations have not been successful in affecting strategic spending decisions. The Ministerial Task Force on Program Review (the Nielsen Task Force) from 1984 to 1986 described evaluations as “generally useless and inadequate for the work of program review” (quoted in Grady and Phidd 1993). More recently, McDavid et al. (2018, 302) conclude that evaluations do not “address questions that would be asked as cabinet decision-makers choose among programs and policies.”

Under the current evaluation policy, federal government departments have considerable flexibility in conducting evaluations. They may focus on design and delivery, program beneficiary responses or a comparison of program costs and benefits. A review of 48 evaluations prepared since 2020 in eight departments21 found that only four went beyond assessing operational efficiency and impacts on beneficiaries to examine whether the program represented value for taxpayer money. Three of these applied formal benefit-cost analysis, which is the standard for assessing regulatory proposals.22

Evaluating programs in terms of operational efficiency and beneficiary impacts helps improve programs, but if evaluations are to inform strategic spending decisions, value-for-money assessments must be mandatory. These assessments should be based on the benefit-cost framework applied to regulatory proposals.

Benefit-cost analysis of regulatory proposals – and by extension, spending programs – assesses the overall social benefits and costs of policy initiatives. The quantitative analysis attempts to determine if the economic pie is larger or smaller after government intervention. For example, economic development programs (business subsidies) are implemented with the expectation that they will increase overall real income. To assess this, benefit-cost analysis considers not only the additional investment and employment resulting from the subsidy but also the opportunity cost of workers and capital – the amount that would have been earned otherwise. The net increase in the economic pie is the incremental earnings of workers and capital less efficiency losses from raising taxes or issuing debt to finance the subsidy and resources used to administer and apply for it.

The nature of the assessment should vary by program type. Business subsidies, labour market development programs and climate change mitigation/adaptation measures have benefits and costs measurable in monetary terms. These programs could be ranked by their net social benefits, allowing comparisons within and across program categories. Programs where benefits are less than costs would be candidates for elimination or modification.

A more nuanced approach is needed when assessing social programs and other measures with a fairness goal for several reasons. Their economic impact is ambiguous, and a negative economic impact is not a sufficient reason to eliminate a program. In addition, support for an income redistribution program depends on who benefits from it. As a result, evaluations of social programs should be more descriptive than prescriptive. They should present information on the economic impacts of measures, their fiscal cost, including administration expenses, and a discussion of who benefits from the program and how they benefit. Evaluations should also assess how the program fits into other measures providing support to the target population. This information will allow elected officials and, since all evaluations would be made public, Canadians, generally, to form an evidence-based opinion on the value for money of social programs.

A thorough assessment of government programs through a value-for-money lens may not identify enough wasteful spending to achieve deficit and debt targets. If so, tax increases should be used to achieve the objectives.

Adopting and achieving the debt target will require a political commitment that currently does not exist. The task for policy analysts is to help build a consensus on a more prudent approach to fiscal policy and a revamped expenditure management system. According to Lester, this consensus should be ratified by legislation setting out general principles for sound fiscal policy, supplemented with non-legislated operational rules to guide annual policy and monitor progress. This approach would impose discipline on fiscal policy while allowing flexibility to address unexpected developments. Legislation would strengthen the consensus on fiscal prudence and help prevent backsliding by future politicians.

Conclusion

The evidence presented at the conference confirmed that Canada has a debt problem. Existing debt levels are not prudent, and they raise concerns about generational fairness. Prudence requires that Canada’s public debt be reduced by about 10 percentage points of GDP before the decade’s end. This would require increasing the combined federal-provincial primary balance by 1.4 percent of GDP, or $43 billion, starting in 2025/26.

Tax increases harm economic performance, so elimination of public spending that does not provide enough benefits to offset this damage should be the first step in reducing deficits and debt. Identifying wasteful spending will require comprehensive value-for-money assessments. Governments must not take the easy way out by implementing across-the-board spending cuts. Successful expenditure restraint will also require setting binding multi-year expenditure ceilings to prevent governments from spending revenue windfalls or from increasing spending to improve chances of electoral success.

Canada’s public debt is imposing a burden on future generations. A comparison of the lifetime tax burden on the recently born with distant future generations reveals only a small generational transfer in favour of the recently born. However, burden shifting is much larger from currently living generations to persons born shortly after the pandemic-induced recession. The $430 billion in pandemic-related debt should be paid down by the people that benefited from the income stabilization measures. Achieving this fairness objective would require more fiscal consolidation than needed to ensure sustainability of the debt. For the Silo, Alexandre Laurin/John Lester via C.D. Howe Institute.

Appendix: Assumptions and Methods for the Sustainability Analysis

References

Aiyagari, S. Rao, and Ellen R. McGrattan. 1998. “The Optimum Quantity of Debt.” Journal of Monetary Economics 42 (3): 447–69.

Ambler, Steve, and Craig Alexander. 2015. “One Percent? For Real? Insights from Modern Growth Theory about Future Investment Returns.” E-Brief. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. October.

Burgess, David F. 1996. “Fiscal Deficits and Intergenerational Welfare in Almost Small Open Economies.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 885–909.

Canada. 2024. “Budget 2024.” Department of Finance Canada. April.

Checherita-Westphal, Cristina D., and Marcel Stechert. 2021. “Household Saving and Fiscal Policy: Evidence for the Euro Area from a Thick Modelling Perspective.” Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3992188.

Conklin, David, and Thomas Courchene. 1983. “Deficits: How Big and How Bad?” Special Research Report. Toronto: Ontario Economic Council.

Cozzi, Marco. 2022. “Has Public Debt Been Too High in Canada and the US? A Quantitative Assessment.” University of Victoria, Economics. Available at: http://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/economics/assets/docs/discussion/ddp2007.pdf.

Dahlby, Bev, and Ergete Ferede. 2022. “What Are the Economic Costs of Raising Revenue by the Canadian Federal Government?” Fraser Institute. Available at: https://roam.macewan.ca/items/73cf71a0-209f-4634-91a7-98d019750638/full.

Grady, Patrick, and Richard W. Phidd. 1993. “Budget Envelopes, Policy Making and Accountability.” Government and Competitiveness Project, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University. http://global-economics.ca/budgetenvelopes.pdf.

International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2022. “Staff Guidance Note on the Sovereign Risk and Debt Sustainability Framework for Market Access Countries.” 2022–039. IMF Policy Papers.

James, Steven, and Philippe Karam. 2001. “The Role of Government Debt in a World of Incomplete Financial Markets.” Department of Finance, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch.

Jenkins, Glenn, and Chun-Yan Kuo. 2007. “The Economic Opportunity Cost of Capital for Canada-an Empirical Update.” Queen’s Economics Department Working Paper. Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/189409.

Johnson, David. 2004. “Does the Debt Matter?” In Is the Debt War Over, pp. 173–96. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s4VcGvjVX0MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA173&dq=%E2%80%9CDoes+the+debt+matter%3F%E2%80%9D+&ots=t0fNWzkyoC&sig=TIQrfQbAitqgSIDuHypw_FT6Eeo.

Kim, Junghum, and Sean Dougherty (eds.) 2020. “Adaptability, accountability and sustainability: Intergovernmental fiscal arrangements in Canada,” in Ageing and Fiscal Challenges across Levels of Government, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Lester, John. 2024. “Minding the Purse Strings: Major Reforms Needed to the Federal Government’s Expenditure Management System.” Available at: https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/For%20advance%20release%20EMS%20E-Brief_359.pdf.

Lester, John, and Alexandre Laurin. 2023. “Ottawa Needs a New Approach to Fiscal Policy.” E-Brief 338. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4397967.

Mahboubi, Parisa. 2019. Intergenerational Fairness: Will Our Kids Live Better than We Do? Commentary 529. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. January.

McDavid, Jim, Astrid Brousselle, Robert P. Shepherd, and David Zussman. 2018. “Linking Evaluation and Spending Reviews: Challenges and Prospects.” Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 32 (3): 297–304. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.43176.

Modigliani, Franco. 1983. “Government Deficits, Inflation and Future Generations.” In Deficits: How Big and How Bad, pp. 55–71.

Moretti, Delphine, Anne Keller, and Marco Majercak. 2023. “Medium-Term and Top-down Budgeting in OECD Countries.” OECD Journal on Budgeting 23 (3). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/39425570-en.

Nakajima, Tomoyuki, and Shuhei Takahashi. 2017. “The Optimum Quantity of Debt for Japan.” Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 46:17–26.

Okamoto, Akira. 2024. “The Optimum Quantity of Debt for an Aging Japan: Welfare and Demographic Dynamics.” The Japanese Economic Review. May. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42973-024-00156-7.

Panizza, Ugo, Richard Varghese, and Yi Huang. 2019. “Public debt and private investment.” Centre for Economic Policy Research. VOXEU Column. December 4.

Peterman, William, and Erick Sager. 2018. “Optimal Public Debt with Life Cycle Motives.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3187698.

Ragan, Christopher, and William G. Watson. 2004. “Is the Debt War Over?: Dispatches from Canada’s Fiscal Frontline.” Vol. 45. IRPP. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s4VcGvjVX0MC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=%22Is+the+debt+war+over%3F%22&ots=t0fNWqoDsw&sig=Q1poOT4AbHtIkx_NVf5GjrcXEtc.

Reinhart, Carmen M., and Kenneth S. Rogoff. 2010. “Growth in a Time of Debt.” American Economic Review 100 (2): 573–78. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.573.

Robson, William, and Parisa Mahboubi. 2024. Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt: The Fiscal Implications of Demographic Change for Ottawa and the Provinces. Commentary 665. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. August.

Robson, William, and William Scarth. 1994. Deficit Reduction – What Pain, What Gain? (Policy Study 23). Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

US Congressional Budget Office. 1995. “Who Pays and When? An Assessment of Generational Accounting.” Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/Genacct.pdf.

Why Canada Capital Gains Tax Increase Is Bad Idea

January , 2025 – One of the most consequential policy changes in this year’s federal budget – an increase in the capital gains inclusion rate – would have far-reaching consequences for Canadians, many of which are underestimated by the government, according to a new study from the C.D. Howe Institute. Leading economist and former President and CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute, Jack Mintz, examines the extensive economic repercussions of this proposed change in his latest report available in full at the end of this article.

Fiscal and Tax Policy

With Parliament prorogued on January 6, the future of the proposed capital gains tax increase remains uncertain. Canadians face the possibility of the measure being passed, amended, or withdrawn entirely under a new government.

Meanwhile, tax planners and the affected individuals and corporations must await the outcome, even though the Canada Revenue Agency began administering the tax on June 25, 2024, after it was announced in the spring budget. At this time, taxpayers could be assessed interest and penalties if they do not comply with the proposed law. If the law is never passed, taxpayers will have to claim refunds. The provincial budgets reliant on the new revenues will be affected if the planned measure is ultimately withdrawn, adding to the confusion and disruption.

“The planned measure to increase the capital gains inclusion rate should never see the light of day when Parliament resumes after March 24, nor be revived thereafter by a new government,” says Mintz. “The hike would create a triple threat: harming Canadian businesses, discouraging investment, and penalizing middle-income Canadians.”

While the government estimated this change would only impact 40,000 individual tax filers and 307,000 corporations, Mintz’s analysis, using longitudinal data, reveals the true impact would be significantly broader. Over 1.26 million Canadians would be affected over their lifetimes – representing 4.3 percent of taxpayers or some 22,000 Canadians per year – with many middle-income earners among those hardest hit.

The report projects significant economic harm caused by the proposed increase – Canada’s capital stock would decline by $127 billion, GDP would fall by nearly $90 billion, and real per-capita GDP would drop by 3 percent. Further, employment would decline by 414,000 jobs, which would raise unemployment from 1.5 million to 1.9 million workers. Importantly, half of the affected individuals would be earning otherwise less than $117,000 annually, with 10 percent earning as little as $18,000, excluding capital gains income.

“This would not just be a tax on the wealthy,” says Mintz. “Many middle-income Canadians would bear the brunt of this increase, and the economic costs would ripple across the entire economy.”

Mintz also highlights the broader implications for Canadian businesses. The planned measure would likely deter equity financing, discourage investment, and exacerbate inefficiencies in financial and corporate structures. Contrary to government claims of “neutrality,” he argues the tax would disproportionately harm domestic companies. These companies will pay corporate capital gains taxes that will increase investment costs. Moreover, they are dependent on Canadian investors due to “home bias” in equity markets. The changes would risk weakening Canada’s productivity and competitiveness at a critical time.

The report further critiques the lack of mechanisms to mitigate the effects of “lumpy” capital gains. Significant asset disposals, such as selling real estate, farmland, business assets, secondary homes or during events like death or emigration, may occur only once or twice in a person’s lifetime. Without provisions to average or defer taxes, individuals would face disproportionately higher burdens. Additionally, the planned tax hike would exacerbate the “lock-in effect,” which discourages the efficient reallocation of capital.

“If the proposed law does not proceed, it would be worthwhile for a government to review capital gains taxation as part of a general tax review that would improve opportunities for economic growth rather than hurt it,” says Mintz.

Read the full report here.

Canadians Paying More Insurance Premiums That Most Developed Nations

Canadian consumers and businesses pay more than $80 billion a year in property & casualty insurance premiums with an upward trend consistently in excess of our anemic GDP growth rate. The total cost is now more than 3 percent of GDP. … But how does Canada benchmark relative to its global peers?

• Canadians pay higher premiums for property and casualty insurance than citizens in many, if not most, other developed nations. This Commentary uses OECD data and private industry data to compare the national P&C insurance sector’s premiums as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product with its international peers and is an update of the findings of the author’s 2021 edition of this report.

• The Commentary focuses on liability, property and auto insurance to compare costs across nations. Then, it takes a deeper dive into the Canadian data to compare personal property and auto insurance among all provinces and territories.

When it comes to costs for property insurance, the study finds Canada is in the top ranks, paying 1.23 percent of GDP in premiums, almost double the 0.66 percent average of other G7 peers and even higher than the 0.52 percent OECD average. For automobile insurance (which here includes both personal and commercial), Canadians appear to be paying, on average, the highest premiums in the world, relative to GDP.

• Within Canada, inter-provincial benchmarking for personal property insurance shows the higher average premiums paid in Canada – relative to the rest of the developed world – appear to be shared equally by most provinces. However, province-by-province comparisons of personal auto insurance show that there are substantial differences among provinces, with four jurisdictions producing higher-than-average results. Two of the four (Saskatchewan and Manitoba) are government-monopoly jurisdictions – in fact, these are the two highest in terms of costs. The two other outliers (Ontario and Alberta) are served by a competitive private sector, but Alberta has chosen until very recently to maintain a costly tort environment and Ontario mandates particularly generous accident benefits and has experienced a plague of auto theft.

• In the case of automobile insurance, just a handful of provinces need to think harder about how to improve car insurance premiums. But to reduce the cost of living for homeowners, the solutions required must be national in scope and include public/private partnerships to share the rapidly increasing risk-transfer price of natural catastrophe events.

Read the full article by Alister Campbell via this PDF.

Strengthening Canada’s Trade Laws to Address Emerging Global Threat

Key Canadian trade laws do not refer to national security as a factor that allows Canada to counter threats from imports of goods or services. Given the tense geopolitical situation, I propose ways to close this “national security gap.” 

The gap is particularly worrisome in two key import-governing legislation: (1) the Customs Tariff Act and (2) the Export and Import Permits Act.

I will show why the omission of the national security element in these and possibly other statutes needs to be remedied.

National Security & Chinese Exports

The Americans imposed surcharges on Chinese EVs, steel, aluminum, semiconductors and other products in May 2024 in response to heavily subsidized Chinese imports that were said to have breached international trade rules. 

The EU started applying countervailing duties on Chinese EVs in July this year, using a more standard trade remedy process to counter the injurious impact of subsidized imports on the European automotive industry. 

The danger posed by Chinese EVs, steel and aluminum imports, plus these actions by Canada’s major trading partners, led the Canadian government to apply comparable tariff surcharges. The strategic threat posed by China’s state-subsidized exports made for the right response by Canada. 

While existing laws allowed the federal cabinet to take action in this case, it also brought home the fact that there is an absence of any reference to “national security” in some of Canada’s major trade law statutes.

Section 53 – Canada’s Rapid  Response Mechanism

In the United States, Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, along with Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, authorize the president to increase tariffs on imports if the quantity or circumstances surrounding those imports are deemed to threaten national security.1

Section 232 was used by the Trump administration in 2018 to apply surcharges to a range of imports from numerous countries, including Canada. However, these tariffs were ultimately dropped in the face of threats by Canada to retaliate against American goods exported to Canada.

Unlike the US, Canada lacks the legislative means to impose import surcharges on the basis of national security. The closest we have is Section 53 of the Customs Tariff Act, which focuses on the enforcement of Canada’s rights under trade agreements and responses to practices that negatively affect Canadian trade. It was Section 53 that was used in the August decision on Chinese EVs, etc., referred to earlier.

Indeed, there are similarities between Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974 and Section 53 of the Customs Tariff Act.But while existing laws allowed the federal cabinet to act in this case, the case brought home the fact that there is an absence of any reference to “national security” in some of Canada’s major trade law statutes.

Governments have shied away from using Section 53 as a policy tool over the years. It was used only once before its present deployment, in response to the Trump administration’s surcharges on Canadian steel and aluminum in 2018 and 2020.2

 The surcharges were ultimately withdrawn when the US tariffs were terminated.Section 53 comes under Division 4 of the Actentitled “Special Measures, Emergency Measures and Safeguards,” giving the government broad powers to apply unilateral tariff measures on the joint recommendation of the ministers of Finance and Global Affairs:

…for the purpose of enforcing Canada’s rights 

under a trade agreement in relation to a country 

or of responding to acts, policies or practices of 

the government of a country that adversely affect, 

or lead directly or indirectly to adverse effects on, 

trade in goods or services of Canada…

There is no requirement for public consultations or input under this provision. Although the government held a round of stakeholder consultations before moving on Chinese imports in August, it was not legally obliged to do so. While the ministerial recommendations must be fact-based and supported by credible data, the law is effective in that nothing inhibits rapid action by the federal cabinet. In this respect, it is a superior tool to Section 232 of the American legislation.3

The critical shortcoming, on the other hand, is that while allowing the government to protect Canadian trade interests in a fairly rapid fashion, Section 53 does not allow action on imports found to be threatening national security, whether it be economic, military or other. There is clearly a need to repair this omission, not only here but in Canada’s other trade laws.

In my view, we need a national security component in Section 53 as the Canadian counterpart to Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act.

Import Controls and National Security

Together with tariff measures, Canada can control imports under the Export and Import Permits Act(EIPA) through the creation of import (and export) control lists designed to achieve particular strategic, security and economic objectives. These lists are established by orders-in-council, 

requiring listed goods and technology to have a permit in order to be imported or exported. These permits are issued by the Trade Controls and Technical Barriers Bureau in Global Affairs Canada (GAC). Without a permit, imports of controlled items are illegal.

While Section 5(1) of EIPA provides for the creation of import control lists covering arms, ammunition and military items, it fails to provide for imports of goods or technology to be controlled for national security reasons. The Act could not have been used, for example, to deal with the effects on national security of imports of Chinese EVs, steel, aluminum or any other goods or technology. EIPA is thus deficient in this regard.

There is a related issue when it comes to export controls. Section 3(1) of EIPA authorizes the establishment of export control lists, among other reasons:

“(a)…to ensure that arms, ammunition, 

implements or munitions of war, etc. … otherwise 

having a strategic nature or value will not be made 

available to any destination where their use might 

be detrimental to the security of Canada.”

The reference to the “security of Canada” under paragraph (a) is the only such reference in the statute and is confined to the security aspects of imports of arms, ammunition, munitions of war, etc. While not as significant as the problems regarding import controls, it is nonetheless a serious omission.

The result is that as EIPA is currently drafted, the federal government lacks the legal authority to create import or export controls designed to protect or safeguard Canadian security. EIPA needs to be amended to add this authority on the part of the government.

Indeed, it may be desirable to re-consider much of the architecture of EIPA from the viewpoint of safeguarding Canada’s security interests on both the export and import side.

Controlling Imports Through Sanctions

Canada’s sanctions laws are found in the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (JVCFOA), the United Nations Act, and, notably, the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA). Each of these statutes allows the federal cabinet to issue sanctions through regulations 

applicable to specific countries and/or jurisdictions and prohibiting transactions in specific items of goods or technology. None of these laws allow sanctions for matters related to Canadian security.

SEMA is Canada’s most widely used sanctions legislation. Section 4 is the only part of the Act that uses the term “security,” but only in instances when, among other matters:

(b) a grave breach of international peace and 

security has occurred that has resulted in or is likely 

to result in a serious international crisis.

Because of the restrictions on international peace and security, the government lacks the authority to issue sanctions dealing with national security interests.4

For example, Canada’s sanctions on Russia are directed at countering actions that “constitute a grave breach of international peace and security that has resulted or is likely to result in a serious international crisis,” with no reference to Canadian national security interests.

SEMA should be amended to allow prohibitions of any transaction or dealings of any kind where Canada’s national security is at risk.

Trade Remedies and National Security

In accordance with the GATT/WTO Agreement, antidumping and countervailing (AD/CV) duties can be applied to dumped or subsidized imports when a domestic industry is injured or threatened with injury from exactly the same imports as that industry produces. In Canada, these are provided for under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA).

SIMA actions are driven by complaints filed by domestic producers who make exactly the same or directly competitive products as the imported items. It means, for example, that in the absence of a Canadian industry threatened with injury or actually injured by the same type of Chinese EVs, aluminum or steel imports as those producers make, AD/CV duty remedies would not be available. SIMA makes no reference to national security as a factor in the application of these duties.

In short, because the SIMA process is geared to provide protection to domestic producers and private sector industries, it is inappropriate as a vehicle for dealing with national economic security concerns that range well beyond those private interests.

The same is true in the case of safeguards, another kind of trade action allowed under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement to counter floods of imports that are not dumped or subsidized but, because of their volume, cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of the same product.

In Canada, safeguard measures come under the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, where an inquiry takes place and, if recommended by the Tribunal, are applied under the Customs Tariff Act.

As in the case of dumped or subsidized imports, safeguard measures are designed to protect specific domestic industries and not to deal with overarching national security issues.

Again, because the objective of these remedial measures in international and Canadian trade law is to protect a domestic industry from financial harm due to imports and not to deal with broader questions of national security, the absence of reference to “security” in these various statutes does not seem to be a significant issue.

National Security under International Trade Law

Article XXI of the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT) is the only provision in the entire WTO package that deals with national security. That article (entitled “Security Exceptions”) allows departures from normal trade rules to permit unilateral trade-restrictive measures that a contracting party “considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests…taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations.”

The drafting of GATT Article XXI dates back to the post-World War II Bretton Woods era. What was considered an international emergency at that time was war, regional armed conflict or a global pandemic like the Asian flu of 1918-1920. The same broad view of international emergency conditions was applied when the Uruguay Round negotiations took place (1991-1994) leading to the conclusion of the WTO Agreement.

With recent cataclysmic changes in the world, whatever the WTO-administered multilateral system might prescribe, governments are moving to protect a range of national (and economic) security concerns by means of unilateral measures in ways that were not envisaged when the Bretton Woods architecture was devised in the late 1940s.

For decades, there was little recourse to Article XXI exceptions. However, their use emerged in the last number of years with the unilateral surcharges imposed by Trump. 

The situation is different – and materially different – in the case of Chinese exports, not only EVs, steel or aluminum but also in technologically advanced or other critical items. These are goods that, by abundant evidence, are heavily subsidized, with massive overcapacity, exported to global markets as part of the Chinese government’s strategy to enhance its geopolitical position – facts uncovered in the EV situation through detailed investigations by the EU and the US.5

Thus, aggressive actions by China and possibly other countries in strategically sensitive areas take the issue beyond the WTO ruling in the US-Section 232 case and raise these to the level of an “emergency in international relations.”

In summary, the concept of an international emergency is much changed in today’s digitized, cyber-intensified world, including the aggressive and destabilizing policies of Chinese state capitalism and other bad actors. The application of GATT/WTO rules drafted in 1947 and updated in the 1990s must be adapted to deal with today’s realities if they are to provide governments with meaningful recourse.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Canada has a panoply of criminal, investment, intelligence gathering and other laws that address national security concerns. However, there is a notable absence of the term “national security” in Canada’s core trade law statutes.

This absence is of concern in the Customs Tariff Act and the Export and Import Permits Act, two important statutes that give the government authority to act to counter injurious imports threatening Canada’s national security.

Given the state of world affairs and the challenges Canada faces from aggressive players like China, Russia, Iran and others, the omissions in these statutes need to be remedied. This should be acted on immediately. There is also a lack of reference to national security in Canada’s sanctions legislation, notably the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA), the main Canadian sanctions statute. 

Amendments should be made to make security concerns a ground for imposing sanctions here as well. The findings of EU agencies on Chinese BEV after a detailed investigation support the view that Chinese state capitalism and its centrally planned industrial capacity are geared toward dominating world markets in critical goods, part of that country’s geopolitical strategy. These and other similar governmental actions can be said to meet the “emergency in international relations” threshold under the WTO Agreement. 

Given the state of affairs at the WTO, including the paralysis of its dispute settlement system, amendments to or reinterpretation of the GATT rules are difficult, if not impossible. The result is that governments will be resorting to unilateral application of the Article XXI exclusion in their own national security measures. While the situation may evolve at the WTO, and without diminishing Canada’s support for the multilateral rules-based system, the federal government should bring forth measures to add reference to national security interests in the above statutes.  For the Silo, Lawrence L. Herman/ C.D. Howe Institute.

International Economic Policy Council Members 

Co-Chairs: Marta Morgan, Pierre S. Pettigrew Members: Ari Van Assche Stephen Beatty Stuart Bergman Dan Ciuriak Catherine Cobden John Curtis Robert Dimitrieff Rick Ekstein Carolina Gallo Victor Gomez Peter Hall Lawrence Herman Caroline Hughes Jim Keon Jean-Marc Leclerc Meredith Lilly Michael McAdoo Marcella Munro Jeanette Patell Representative, Amazon Canada Joanne Pitkin Rob Stewart Aaron Sydor Daniel Trefle

1 The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87–794, 76 Stat. 872, enacted October 11, 1962, codified at 19 U.S.C. ch. 7); The Trade Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–618, 88 Stat. 1978, enacted January 3, 1975, codified at 19 U.S.C. ch. 12).

2 The government announced it was applying these “to encourage a prompt end to the U.S. tariffs, which negatively affect Canadian workers and businesses and threaten to undermine the integrity of the global trading system.” See: “United States Surtax Order (Steel and Aluminum),” Government of Canada, June 28, 2018, https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2018/2018-07-11/html/sordors152-eng.html. 

3 Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows the president to impose import restrictions – but these must be based on an investigation and affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce that certain imports threaten to impair US national security.

4 The array of Canada’s sanctions can be found on the GAC website at: https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/sanctions/current-actuelles.aspx?lang=eng. 

5 The EU measures followed a countervailing duty approach, as opposed to direct action in the case of Canada and the US. In its extremely detailed investigation, EU agencies found, on the basis of massive evidence, that:
“ . . . the BEV [battery electric vehicle] industry is thus regarded as a key/strategic industry, whose development is actively pursued by the GOC as a policy objective. The BEV sector is shown to be of paramount importance for the GOC and receives political support for its accelerated development. Including from vital inputs to the end product. On the basis of the policy documents referred to in this section, the Commission concluded that the GOC intervenes in the BEV industry to implement the related policies and interferes with the free play of market forces in the BEV sector, notably by promoting and supporting the sector through various means and key steps in their production and sale.”See: “Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1866,” European Union, July 3, 2024, at para. 253, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/1866/oj

Canada Should Embrace Trump Presidency Opportunities

From: Chris Christie
To: Nervous Canadians 
Date: November 6, 2024 
Re: Canada Should Embrace the Opportunities of a Second Trump Presidency

A second Donald Trump presidency, if approached strategically, offers Canada more opportunities than risks.

Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric is often erratic, of that there is no doubt. And I, as you might have heard, am not a Donald Trump advocate.

But what happens in governance under Trump is a far cry from his provocative online posts or bombastic speeches, as I argued in the latest C.D. Howe Institute Regent Debate. His track record speaks for itself, and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, Canada has already benefitted from Trump-era policies.

Let’s take the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement – CUSMA in the Canadian rendering – as a prime example. Trump’s renegotiation of NAFTA wasn’t just about putting “America first.” It was about reshaping trade relationships in North America to benefit all three countries. The agreement secured economic ties between the US, Canada, and Mexico in a way that ensures long-term growth for all parties involved.

Trump views that agreement as one of his crowning achievements, and rest assured, it’s not going anywhere. It is a durable platform for growth in North American trade.

Looking forward, the question isn’t whether Trump is unpredictable. It’s whether Canada can recognize and leverage the opportunities his policies present.

With Trump re-elected, his administration will continue to focus on policies that drive economic growth – lower taxes, reduced regulations, and energy independence. A booming US economy means a stronger Canada, as our two economies are deeply intertwined. When one prospers, the other stands to benefit through increased trade and investment.

Trump’s approach to trade – especially tariffs – has often been misunderstood. Yes, his speech-making is aggressive. But we need to separate rhetoric from reality. Trump’s actual policies were more measured than many anticipated. And they will be again. 

The real adversary for Donald Trump is China, not Canada. If Trump tightens the screws on China’s unfair trade practices, it could create space for Canadian companies to flourish on a more level playing field, particularly in sectors like technology and intellectual property, where China has been a major violator.

Trump’s economic philosophy – focused on cutting taxes and regulations to unleash private-sector growth – should also serve as a wake-up call for Canada. Under Prime Minister Trudeau, Canada has taken a ruinous policy road, with higher taxes and more government intervention in business.

But what if Canada aligned itself more closely with the pro-growth policies Trump advocates? 

Imagine the potential for Canadian businesses if they operated in an environment with fewer barriers to growth. A thriving private sector in Canada would strengthen the economy and create more opportunities for collaboration and trade with the US.

I won’t pretend that a second term comes without challenges. But instead of focusing on the personality occupying the Oval Office, Canada should focus on how to navigate the opportunities presented by our shared future as neighbours and trade partners.

It’s time to stop seeing Trump as an unpredictable threat and start recognizing the potential opportunities his policies can bring. Canada stands to benefit if it plays its cards right. For the Silo, Chris Christie.

Chris Christie was the 55th Governor of New Jersey and a participant in the C.D. Howe Institute’s recent Regent Debate. Send comments to Chris via this link.

Canada’s Digital Services Tax is in US Crosshairs 

From: Jon Johnson
To: Global Affairs Canada 

On August 30, the US requested consultations respecting Canada’s Digital Services Tax Act under the dispute settlement procedure set out in the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The US maintains that by imposing the tax, Canada has failed to provide US service providers and investors treatment no less favourable than it provides to Canadian service providers and investors. Given Canada’s unique trade relationship with the US, this could have major implications.

The essence of the complaint is that Canada is violating a specific CUSMA obligation to grant US firms terms that are no less favourable than its own companies receive.

This is called national treatment. The crux of the US argument is that the revenue and earnings thresholds are so high that no Canadian service provider would be subject to the tax, but at least some US providers would be. While the DST is not discriminatory on its face, its practical effect is discriminatory. 

Canada’s taxation of digital services has been an on-going contentious issue with the US. The new legislation entered into effect on June 20 and imposes a 3-percent levy – retroactive to January 1, 2022 – on revenue (not income) earned from digital services when certain thresholds are met. Annual gross revenues in a calendar year must exceed €750 million for the tax to apply. The taxpayer must also earn at least C$20 million in Canadian digital services revenue in a calendar year. Affected companies are to start paying the tax next June 30. 

On August 1, the Congressional Research Office released a paper outlining multiple concerns. It cites industry associations that maintain that Canada’s DST could “cost US exporters and the US tax base up to $2.3 billion annually and could directly result in the loss of thousands of full-time US jobs.” The paper also cites possible violations of CUSMA and WTO obligations. 

The paper also notes that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has applied sanctions under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against digital services taxes enacted by other countries. Section 301 is much broader in its application than either CUSMA or the WTO.

The CUSMA panel could decide for the US if the facts establish that only US companies meet the €750 million threshold for overall earnings and whose Canadian digital earnings exceed C$20,000,000. 

Aside from the possibility of an adverse panel decision and action by the US under Section 301, there are other factors that Global Affairs Canada should consider before the Canadian government commences with the retroactive portion of the tax.  

CUSMA is up for renegotiation on July 1, 2026. The process on the US side starts with a USTR report to Congress, due by the end of 2025, that will include an assessment of CUSMA’s operation, as well as a recommendation on CUSMA extension. As Canadian initiatives to impose digital taxes have been a US concern for years now, the recommendation will doubtless address the question of Canada’s DST regime. If that regime remains an open issue and US concerns are not satisfied, the stage could be set for the ultimate demise of CUSMA in 2036.

CUSMA Article 32.6 also provides that a party can withdraw from CUSMA upon giving six months’ notice to the other parties.  

Decision time for the Canadian government falls on June 30, 2025, and it has to decide whether to go ahead and start collecting its retroactive DST and face the inevitable hostile reaction of its largest trading partner. This has to be carefully managed, or this small issue could become a big one. For the Silo, Jon Johnson.

Jon Johnson is a former advisor to the Canadian government during NAFTA negotiations and is a Senior Fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute.

Third Swing At Canada Carbon Tax Analysis By PBO

Let’s Hope for Solid Hit from the PBO’s Third Swing at Carbon Tax Analysis

The “corrected” analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Office of the carbon tax and rebates is due soon. One hopes it will get more things right in this third crack at evaluating the government of Canada’s assurance that most Canadians will receive enough from the carbon tax rebates to cover their cost of paying the tax.

Reporting in 2022 and in an update last year, the PBO analysis confirmed the government assertion so long as induced economic effects from the carbon levy are not included. However, once the economic damage from the levy is included, the PBO concluded that the rebates fall short of keeping family budgets whole. 

The PBO’s conclusion was seized on by Conservative politicians and others to justify calls to revoke the carbon tax. Now, more knives have come out. The NDP says it would scrap the tax on households and put the burden on large emitters, but it does not yet explain how it would square that with the current big-emitter carbon tax. And BC, where carbon taxing began in Canada, has said it would drop the tax if Ottawa removed the legal requirement.

Much is at stake with this third PBO swing.

After the second report, the PBO admitted that its analysis had included, in addition to the carbon tax on households, the tax on large emitters as well. The economic impacts had been taken from work passed over to the PBO by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), which included the effects of the tax as applied to both industrial and household payers. The budget officer said the error was small and had little consequence for the analysis and promised a corrected version this fall. 

The Canadian Climate Institute estimates that 20-48 percent of the emissions reduction by 2030 will come from the levy on large emitters compared to 8-14 percent from households. Given the scale of the large emitters tax, it is likely that it has significant economic effects on any forecast. Fixing this should not, however, be the most consequential revision to its analysis. 

The PBO’s first two efforts had an analytical asymmetry. It measured the economic cost originating in the tax, exaggerated as it turned out, but did not attempt to capture the economic benefits (not to mention any health gains) from the effects of the household carbon levy in mitigating climate change. Put differently, their work was, in effect, based upon the faulty premise that climate change brings no economic damage. The massive and growing costs of cleaning up fire and flood damage and adapting to the many other consequences of global warming bear evidence of such costs. The PBO could and should do its own analysis of those climate change costs and, hence, the benefits of mitigation. Or it could more easily tap into the substantial body of available literature.

Lowering Canada’s Gross Domestic Product

In Damage Control, the Canadian Climate Institute estimated climate change would lower the Gross Domestic Product by $35 billion from what it would otherwise have been in 2030; the impact would rise to $80 to $103 billion by 2055. Through cutting emissions, the household carbon tax will reduce this cost. International literature is rich, and the PBO could review it for applicability to Canada. As but one example, Howard and Sterner’s (2017) meta-analysis on the impacts of climate change concluded most studies underestimated them. Their preferred estimate points to a GDP hit of between 7 and 8 percent of GDP if there are no catastrophic damages and 9 to 10 percent if there are. Conceptual thinking is also advancing. Consideration is being given to there being “tipping points” where a certain degree of climate change may have much more non-linear dramatic economic effects. Some, like Stern and Stigliz, even question the worth of comparing an economic outlook with mitigation action against a status quo baseline as the PBO has done. They argue that without mitigation, there may not be a sustainable economic outcome. 

Finally, those still inclined to think that a corrected Fall 2024 PBO report will provide ammunition to “axe the tax” need to ask themselves two questions.

First, is there value in the emissions reduction resulting from the household carbon tax? The Canadian Climate Institute concludes that the 8-14 percent contribution to emissions reduction by 2030 will grow in later years. Even with the tax and all the other policies announced to date, there is a 42-megatonne gap in Canada’s 2030 emissions reduction target. More than 200 Canadian economists signed an open letter asserting that “carbon pricing is the lowest cost approach because it gives each person and business the flexibility to choose the best way to reduce their carbon footprints. Other methods, such as direct regulations, tend to be more intrusive and inflexible, and cost more.” If not the household carbon tax, then what else?  

Let us hope the PBO’s third carbon tax report gives evidence to form a more balanced perspective. For The Silo, Don Drummond/C.D. Howe Institute.

Don Drummond is the Stauffer-Dunning Fellow in Global Public Policy and Adjunct Professor at the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University and a Fellow-In-Residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.

Basic Living Standard Arithmetic For Ottawa And All Governments

September , 2024

To: Canadians concerned about prosperity 
From: Don Wright 
Date: September 4, 2024
Re: Some Basic Living Standard Arithmetic for Governments

Governments often talk about “creating jobs,” but what they really do is choose some jobs at the expense of others. With their myriad spending, taxing and regulatory decisions, all governments try to direct job growth to different sectors – public or private, services or goods, resources or non-resources, and so on.

We all hope governments choose wisely.

It would help if they started paying more explicit attention to one factor: The impact of their decisions on Canadians’ standard of living.

A country’s standard of living is largely determined by the wages and net government revenue its tradeable goods and services sector can pay while remaining competitive against international competitors. If a company or sector is uncompetitive, it will have to either lower its wages, pay less tax or go out of business. These pressures on companies are never-ending. They determine both the wages a sector can afford to pay, and, through the interconnectedness of labour markets, average wages across the economy.

Some industries are so productive they can pay relatively high wages and significant taxes and yet remain competitive.

Industries that aren’t as productive can only pay lower wages and less tax.

Governments whose policies have the effect of moving labour from one sector to another had better pay attention to such facts.

Canadians may not like it but many of the country’s best-paying and most tax-rich jobs are found in natural resources. I was head of British Columbia’s public service. For most of B.C.’s history the province’s economic base has been dominated by natural resource industries – forestry, mining, oil and gas, agriculture and fishing. For a variety of reasons, these industries face strong political headwinds. Many groups press to constrain them and diversify away from them. The alternatives proposed include technology, film and tourism.

A few years ago, I asked officials in the province’s finance ministry to assess the relative performance of these different industries along the two key dimensions of average wages and net government revenue. In 2019-20 B.C. spent approximately $11,700 per citizen. Half the population was employed that year. So, to “break even” (i.e., have a balanced budget), the province had to collect $23,400 per employed person. If you look at things this way, each industry’s “profit” or “loss” is simply its revenue per employee less $23,400.

No such calculation will be exact, of course.

Several assumptions have to be made to get to an average “profit” or “loss” per employee. But, with that caveat, the numbers the officials brought back were telling. The industry with the biggest return to the province was oil and gas, at $35,500 per employee. Forestry was next, at $32,900. Then mining, at $14,900, and technology, though only at $900.

By this measure of profit and loss, however, film was a money loser, at -$13,400, and so was tourism, at -$6,900.

The negative numbers for the film industry reflect the very significant subsidies that B.C. (like many other provinces) provides to this sector. The negative number for the tourism sector primarily reflects low average wages per employee, which translate into relatively low personal income tax, sales tax and other taxes paid by employees.

These “profit or loss” numbers are not in any way a judgment about workers in these sectors. People find the best employment available to them in the labour market. Relative demands in that market are determined by many factors, none of which workers control. That said, if governments consciously move resources from the “profit” industries to the “loss” industries, they had better be aware of the consequences for wages, taxes and the overall standard of living.

The numbers I’ve cited were for a single year in British Columbia. The same analysis for other provinces or for Canada as a whole would likely produce different numbers – though I’d be surprised if the overall pattern were much different. Voters will draw their own conclusions about the impact on British Columbians’ standard of living from constraining the resource industries and promoting other industries instead.

Unfortunately, this type of analysis is rarely done when Canadian governments make decisions about what types of jobs they want to give preference to through their taxation, spending and regulatory decisions. They should do more of it. Ultimately, if [they] care about Canadians’ standard of living, governments need to start paying attention to the basic arithmetic of that standard of living.

Don Wright, senior fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute and senior counsel at Global Public Affairs, previously served as deputy minister to B.C.’s premier, cabinet secretary and head of the public service.

Rethinking Canada Tariffs On China EVs

Via friends at C.D. Howe Institute. A version of this memo first appeared in the Financial Post.

To: Canadian trade watchers 
From: Ari Van Assche 
Date:  August, 2024
Re: Canada’s Electric Vehicle De-Risking Trilemma 

With the recent wrap-up of Ottawa’s month-long public consultation on levying tariffs on electrical vehicles (EVs) made in China, let’s paraphrase a story Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman once used to explain the often under-appreciated benefits of free trade:

Consider a Canadian entrepreneur who starts a new business that uses secret technology to transform Canadian lumber and canola into affordable EVs. She is lauded as a champion of industry for her innovative spirit and commitment to Net Zero. But a suspicious reporter discovers that what she is really doing is exporting Canadian-made lumber and canola and using the proceeds to purchase Chinese-made EVs. Sentiment turns sharply against her. On social media, she is widely denounced as a fraud who is destroying Canadian jobs and threatening national security. Parliament passes a unanimous resolution condemning her.

Going the other direction: China is Canada’s third largest destination for agricultural products.

This story underscores a critical dilemma that should have been central in the public consultations.

Those opposing tariffs argue that trade is a potent yet undervalued tool in our fight against climate change: It provides Canada access to low-emissions technologies at increasingly affordable prices, which is essential for transitioning society away from carbon-intensive energy sources. In contrast, those in favour are concerned about supply security, fearing excessive reliance on our biggest geopolitical rival for low-emissions technologies. They warn against swapping the West’s age-old energy insecurity in oil for insecurity in the supply of critical minerals and EV batteries.

The $70,000 cad Polestar 2 EV produced by Volvo. In 2010, Geely Holding Group a Chinese automotive group bought Volvo.

Copilot AI

“As of now, the Chinese electric vehicle (EV) market is making strides globally, but in Canada, the landscape is still evolving: Tesla Model Y and Polestar 2: While not exclusively Chinese, the Tesla Model Y (which is produced in China) and the Polestar 2 (a subsidiary of Volvo, which has Chinese ownership) are currently the most prominent Chinese-made EVs available in Canada. These models have gained attention due to their performance, range, and brand reputation1.”

I examined some of the national security issues that have surfaced in the discussion surrounding supply chains for low-emissions energy technologies like EV batteries in my recent C.D. Howe Institute report.

After examining the various de-risking policies governments have implemented, including their downsides and unintended consequences, I conclude Ottawa probably should develop de-risking policies.

But it needs to apply them judiciously, prudently and rarely. And it needs to justify them with credible, detailed evidence regarding concerns about supply security and whether domestic industry really would be able to compete if market conditions were fairer. This will be important in upholding Canada’s reputation as a leading proponent of the rules-based multilateral system.

China’s role in the supply chains of low-emissions energy technologies does raise real security concerns. China has established near monopolies in several critical minerals and other components of EV batteries, solar panels and wind turbines. No ready alternatives are produced in other countries. For example, 79 percent of global production capacity of polysilicon, which is key for solar cell production, is in China. The next biggest producers, Germany and the United States, have difficulty competing with China’s high-quality, ultra-cheap polysilicon.

China’s monopolies create chokepoints that could enable its government to manipulate production to pursue its own geopolitical ambitions.

Precedents exist: China blocked rare-earth exports to Japan in 2010 and banned exports of rare-earth processing technology in 2023.

Several countries have started adopting de-risking policies to reduce their reliance on these Chinese chokepoints, usually either onshoring or friendshoring. Canada’s recent Critical Minerals Strategy is typical. It was designed in part to reduce this country’s dependence on foreign-mined and processed critical raw materials by, among other things, allocating $1.5 billion to support Canadian critical minerals projects related to advanced manufacturing, processing and recycling.

But these de-risking policies come at a cost.

Ottawa needs to carefully navigate a “policy trilemma” as it strives to formulate a policy agenda that simultaneously targets three goals: Advancing security, promoting low-emissions energy adoption, and capturing the benefits of trade for consumers and businesses.

Proposed steep tariffs on Chinese EV imports provide a good example of the trilemma.

They may well safeguard security by protecting a domestic production base. But they could discourage the uptake of EVs, which are already experiencing a slowdown in sales. Moreover, such unilateral action against China could escalate geopolitical tensions, thereby generating new risks, including Chinese retaliation. The path to effective de-risking is clearly fraught with trade-offs and requires careful navigation.

There is scant evidence that China is on its way to becoming a near-monopoly in global EV production itself, but it may seek to benefit from its near-monopoly in key inputs. The ultimate question that the government should answer is, therefore, whether the security concerns regarding these chokepoints, and more generally China’s willingness to compete fairly under these conditions, justify the costs and risks of higher tariffs. The burden on Ottawa is to provide concrete evidence to that effect before imposing an inherently costly tariff on Canadians.

Ari Van Assche is a professor of international business at HEC Montréal and Fellow-in-Residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.

Making Sense Of Canada Doctor Shortage Paradox

Canadians are in a primary-care paradox.

About 14 percent of Canadians aged 12 and older – approximately 4.6 million people – did not have a regular health-care provider in 2022, according to Statistics Canada. Even more alarming, about 6.6 million Canadians rely on family doctors aged 65 and over, meaning that even more people could soon find themselves adrift as their physician retires.

Canada has the highest number of general practitioners per capita among comparator countries, yet ranks worst in terms of having a doctor or a regular place for medical care (only 86.2 percent of surveyed Canadians had one in 2023).

What is happening?

Several factors are at play.

First, it’s no secret that the physician workforce, much like the rest of our population, is aging. There aren’t enough new graduates to replace retiring physicians and meet the needs of a growing population. [Canada currently has one of the highest Immigration rates in the world with rates growing steadily and currently sit at around 1.2% population increase each year. CP]

Moreover, physicians have been spending fewer hours on direct patient care. Administrative tasks, such as paperwork for insurance claims, sick notes, and duplicate form requests from different organizations, consume approximately 18.5 million hours of physician time annually in Canada, equivalent to 55.6 million patient visits. Economic and cultural factors are also steering medical trainees towards specialties rather than general family practice. Without changes, the gap between the supply and demand for family physicians will only widen.

My recent C.D. Howe Institute analysis shows that under a normal retirement scenario – where 57 percent of family physicians aged 75 and over retire – the projected supply of family physicians in 2032 will meet 90 percent of the demand. If all family physicians aged 75 and over were to retire, only 78 percent of projected demand would be met, leaving us 13,845 family physicians short.

This means that about 9.6 million Canadians could be without a family physician in the next decade. The consequences of this shortage could be dire, leading to delayed or inadequate care, increased costs, and a strain on other parts of the healthcare system.

With only about 1,550 family physicians completing residency in 2022, the current pipeline of graduates is insufficient. What needs to be done?

Increasing numbers is essential, but will not suffice to meet the demands of a growing and aging population. We need a comprehensive strategy, and five well-established strategies can help.

First, we need to increase the number of training positions for prospective family doctors and accelerate pathways for international medical graduates to enter family medicine, whether direct-to-practice or through residency positions.

Second, administrative processes need to be streamlined to reduce family physicians’ unnecessary workload, freeing more time for direct patient care.

Another strategy is to introduce payment models such as capitation or bundled payments that better support family physicians, making family practice more attractive and encouraging more patient enrolment and after-hours care.

As well, allowing other primary-care providers, such as nurse practitioners and pharmacists, to take on a broader range of responsibilities could assist with sharing the workload and improving patient access.

Finally, developing and expanding team-based models of care that bring together health-care professionals to provide comprehensive and continuous patient care could also benefit Canadians.

The good news is that some of these steps are starting in some provinces.

Nova Scotia is advancing on all fronts; creating a new designated pathway to residency for international medical graduates; committed to reducing physician red tape by 80 percent  by 2024; is a leader in paying family physicians with alternate payment; introduced pharmacist-delivered primary care for 31 minor ailments; and expanded team-based care at new and existing locations. Similarly, British Columbia and Ontario have made notable advancements in several of the five strategies.

Improving primary-care access is a nationwide challenge that requires concerted efforts and innovative solutions. By learning from the policies and experiences of different provinces, Canada can develop and implement effective strategies to ensure every Canadian has access to a family physician and the primary care they need. Canada’s health-care system – and the health of its people – depends on it.

For the Silo, Tingting Zhang -Junior Policy Analyst at the C.D. Howe Institute.

Supplemental- Canada’s Lack Of Residencies For Foreign-Trained Doctors Fuelling Healthcare Labour Shortage

How Canada Can Make Faster Major Project Decisions

June,2024 – Lengthy delays and regulatory uncertainty is deterring investment in major infrastructure projects in Canada, according to a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute. In “Smoothing the Path: How Canada Can Make Faster Major-Project Decisions”, authors Charles DeLand and Brad Gilmour find that Canada’s regulatory approval process is creating high costs for investors and preventing critical projects in hydrocarbon production, mining, electricity generation, electricity transmission, ports and other infrastructure from being built.

Sectors that have historically driven business investment and productivity in Canada—mining, oil and gas—are most affected by complex regulatory procedures.

While investments in these sectors have supported high incomes for workers and high revenues for government in the past, they are now trending downwards. “Canada is struggling to complete large infrastructure projects in a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable price and the proposed amendments to the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) are insufficient,” says Gilmour.

  • Canadians have been debating whether Canada’s regulatory and permitting processes strike the right balance between attracting investments in major resource projects and mitigating potential harm from those investments.
  • These regulatory processes typically apply to complex and expensive projects, such as mines, large hydrocarbon production projects (oil sands, liquefied natural gas [LNG], offshore oil), electricity generation (hydroelectric dams, nuclear), electricity transmission (wires), ports and oil or natural gas pipelines. These projects often involve multiple levels of jurisdiction and can prove particularly slow to gain government approval.
  • Canada struggles to complete large infrastructure projects, let alone cheaply and quickly. We propose improving major project approval processes by: (a) ensuring that provincial and federal governments respect jurisdictional boundaries; (b) leaving the decision-making to the expert, politically independent tribunals that are best positioned to assess the overall public interest of an activity; (c) drafting legislation with precision that focuses review on matters that are relevant to the particular project being assessed; and (d) confirming the need to rely on the regulatory review process and the approvals granted for the construction and operation of the project.

The Full Report

Canada Debt Becoming Unmanageable Economists Warn

With the Canadian government’s high debt-to-GDP ratios, such as a ratio of debt to nominal GDP sitting at 68 percent in March 2023, economists warn that government debt could become unsustainably high if Ottawa fails to reduce spending, increase productivity, and re-establish business confidence.

“We’re not growing our income per capita, which means that we’re not going to get the tax revenues that we need, plus we’re getting a lot of people retiring. So the situation could end up becoming quite unmanageable if we keep our pace that we’re going,” said Jack Mintz, president’s fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

The federal government has run back-to-back budget deficits since the 2008 financial recession, with government spending spiking during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, Canada’s debt as a percentage of nominal GDP rose from around 51 percent in 2009 to 74 percent by 2021, for example. Nominal refers to the current value for the particular year without taking inflation into account.

The two previous federal budgets have attempted to lower government spending, but the federal government will still post a $40 billion deficit in 2023–24, which they project will shrink to a $20 billion deficit by 2028–29.

The Liberal government’s response to criticism by the opposition that Canada’s debt could lead the country into a financial crisis has been that Canada has among the best debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7.

According to Mr. Mintz, while Canada’s debt situation is not as bad as it once was, it doesn’t mean that it may not impact Canada’s prosperity prospects.

Conrad Black: Budget 2024 Is an Assault on Canadian Investment

ANALYSIS: Higher Income Taxes Not Only for Wealthy in Budget 2024

Mr. Mintz points out that Canada’s debt situation is not nearly as bad as in 1996. The government’s ratio of debt to nominal GDP ratio reached 83 percent that year.

Mr. Mintz also noted that Canada continues to have a triple-A credit rating according to the world’s leading credit agencies, meaning the country’s debt is not yet seen as problematic.

“We’re still viewed as having a much better credit line compared to a number of other countries. … But at some point, the credit agencies might look at that gross debt number and start asking the question, ‘Is it starting to become unsustainable?’” he said.

Lower Productivity Hampering Debt Payments

The federal government’s ability to pay off its debt could be hampered by low productivity, according to Steve Ambler, professor emeritus of economics at Université du Québec à Montréal.

“The thing that worries me in terms of federal government debt is we are currently in a period of extremely low productivity growth and low overall growth,” he said.

In March, the Bank of Canada’s senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers warned that Canada’s poor productivity had reached emergency levels.

Although Statistics Canada said the country’s labour productivity showed a small gain at the end of 2023, that came after six consecutive quarters of productivity decline.

The right honourable Jean Chrétien.

Mr. Ambler said an appropriate way to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio is to keep government spending from increasing while also raising productivity to increase tax revenues. He said this was the strategy of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, whose Liberal government established a budget surplus in three years by growing the economy and keeping government spending stagnant.

To lower Canada’s debt-to-GDP ratio, Mr. Ambler said the government should focus on increasing worker productivity, allowing its resource sector to grow, and easing back on discretionary spending.

He also cited a November 2023 C.D. Howe paper showing that business investment per worker in Canada has shrunk relative to the United States since 2015. Investments such as better tools for workers would increase productivity, while productivity growth would in turn create opportunities and competitive threats that spur businesses to invest, the paper said.

“Re-establishing business confidence would be almost the number one priority, especially in the resource sector,” Mr. Ambler said, adding that a future government might also be wise to lower the feds’ “wildly extravagant subsidy programs” for the electric vehicle (EV) sector.

The Liberal government has given tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for EV manufacturing projects in Canada since 2020, saying the factories will eventually create thousands of new jobs.

‘No Cushion’ to Mitigate Debt Issue

Joseph Barbuto, director of research at the Economic Longwave Research Group, has a more pessimistic view of Canada’s debt. He says that while federal debt is at levels similar to the 1990s, the crisis will be “larger” because the government does not have the “fiscal room to mitigate the downturn.”

Mr. Barbuto said that while the Canadian government was able to help alleviate its debt issues in the 1930s and 1990s by lowering its interest rates, it does not have that same luxury in 2024. The Bank of Canada lowered its key policy rate from 1.25 percent to 0.25 percent in 2020, and was forced to raise it to 5 percent by 2023 in response to rising inflation.

“There’s no interest rate cushion on the other side. Interest rates can only fall back to zero,” Mr. Barbuto said, noting that higher interest rates make it more difficult for governments to service their debt.

“The problem with the monetary system is there’s no fiscal discipline that is pushed on governments, unlike [individuals] or corporations,” he said.

“There will be a point where because of the accumulated interest with rising interest rates, eventually it’s going to overwhelm the government and then people will not lend the government any kind of capital.”

Mr. Barbuto also expressed concern over Canada’s private debt-to-GDP ratio. Private debt refers to debt owed by private, non-financial entities such as businesses and households, as opposed to public debt owed by governments and banks. Canada’s ratio of private debt to nominal GDP sat at 217 percent in December 2023 compared to 124 percent in 1995.

Mr. Barbuto said Canada’s private debt-to-GDP ratio is higher than that of Japan’s in the 1990s, and pointed out that the Japanese economy had stagnated after the country’s asset price bubble burst in 1992.

The research director believes the Canadian economy will eventually see a debt crisis and collapse in real estate that will result in austerity measures, a shrinkage in the size of government, and the “creative destruction” of the old political and economic system. He said this would be the continuation of an economic cycle that has repeatedly happened throughout history.

“[It’s] inevitable and necessary. A debt detox or deleveraging is the same thing as a drug detox. Nobody likes it, … but it’s a necessary part of the cycle for it then to go back up,” he said.

For the Silo, Matthew Horwood/Epoch Times.

Beware Of Overreach In Canada Competition Law Reforms

May, 2024 – Many of the federal government’s recent reforms in competition law sensibly strengthen the enforcement powers of the Competition Bureau and private actors seeking redress for allegedly anti-competitive behavior. However, amendments to the Competition Act that simply make it easier to meet legal tests for orders against allegedly anti-competitive conduct are over-reach, says a new report by our friends at the C.D. Howe Institute.

In “Uncertainty and the Burden of Proof in Canadian Competition Law,” author Edward M. Iacobucci, a professor in corporate and competition law at the University of Toronto and Competition Policy Scholar at the C.D. Howe Institute, says that while strengthening the enforcement powers of the Competition Bureau is welcome, other amendments to the Competition Act imply more profound changes to the fundamental posture of competition law.

Specifically, there is a family of amendments and proposals to move away from the bedrock principle that the burden rests with the Bureau to prove, on a balance of responsibilities, that a merger or practice by a dominant firm is likely to be or is anti-competitive. 

For example, the author argues that lowering the burden of proof in mergers cases to “appreciable risk” of anti-competitive effects or something analogous would be a mistake.

“The overwhelming problem with this standard is that it is too easy to meet and fails to distinguish anti-competitive from benign conduct,” he states.  He also disagrees with proposals to rely on market shares rather than competitive assessments in mergers cases.  He objects in addition to abolishing the requirement to analyze anti-competitive effects in abuse of dominant position cases – recent amendments imply that pro-competitive conduct could be treated as an abuse of dominance.

Aside from competition law reform, the author notes that there are other policy reforms that could promote competition. 

 “Assuming competition has worsened in Canada, there are several remedial policies that I suspect would be far more important than competition law reform,” he says. “The OECD ranks Canada near the worst internationally in establishing regulatory barriers to competition.” 

 Regulation, internal trade barriers, restrictions on international competition and ownership, and other policies are all important contributors to reducing competition in Canada and, certainly in their collective impact, are more important than competition law, he argues.

Nevertheless, there are good reasons to take stock of Canadian competition law.

“The vulnerability of digital markets to market power stemming from network externalities and scale economies encourages reflection on whether the Competition Act continues to be suitable for present times.”

“I am skeptical of the narrative that the law requires sweeping reform to address the digital economy or to reverse a strong, secular decline in competition caused by competition law,” Iacobucci added. “But I am not skeptical that there is room for improvement. I encourage the government to focus on strengthening enforcement and to resist and even reverse recent reforms to the burden of proof.”

For The Silo, Edward M. Iacobucci, TSE Chair in Capital Markets, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto and C.D. Howe Competition Policy Scholar.

Read the full report here.

Study in Brief:

• There are good reasons to take stock of Canadian competition law. The vulnerability of digital markets to market power stemming from network externalities and scale economies encourages reflection on whether the Competition Act continues to be suitable for present times.

• Recently, a number of statutory amendments have been proposed to amend the Act, some have been tabled in Parliament and still others already adopted. The federal government recently passed consequential amendments that grant the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) the power to initiate market studies, to include scrutiny of vertical agreements as possibly anti-competitive collaborations, to repeal the efficiencies defence to mergers, and to lower the burden of proof in abuse of dominance cases.

• Many of the government’s actions to date sensibly strengthen the enforcement powers of the Competition Bureau and make it easier for private actors seeking redress for allegedly anti-competitive behaviour.

• There are, however, other actual and proposed amendments that imply profound changes to the fundamental posture of Canadian competition law. In particular there are actual and proposed amendments that move away from the bedrock principle that the burden rests with the Bureau to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that a merger or practice by a dominant firm is likely to be or is anti-competitive.

• While enhancing enforcement is welcome, legislative amendments that lower the burden of proof are a mistake.

Demand For Canada Seniors Care Is Critical

As Canada’s aging population continues to grow, there are concerns about the financial and physical capacity to meet its growing care needs.

Seniors’ need for housing and care is a complex issue involving many government policies and, therefore, government has many avenues for the exertion of control and adjustment over the issue. Much room for improvement is evident in the quality of, capacity for, and financial support for meeting these needs. This analysis provides a summary of the challenges and gaps in the current state of senior support policies and provides insights to inform future policy.

This Commentary examines the household spending patterns of seniors, the availability of different housing and care options, the costs of providing care in different settings, and government policies that subsidize support services in homes, retirement communities, and long-term care. The results show that the availability and costs of different services and types of care vary significantly across the country. In particular, seniors with below-median incomes face affordability challenges related to shelter costs, with these costs becoming a potential barrier to access to retirement homes and other support services if not publicly available. Further, there is unmet need for home care across Canada, which invests less in home and community care than other OECD countries.

To ensure there is adequate capacity to provide care for high-needs seniors, provinces should invest in expanding home and community care and prevention.

Previous research has shown that about 30 percent of entries to long-term care homes (LTC) could be delayed or prevented (CIHI 2017). Investing in expanded home and community support services and providing financial supports for low-income seniors to access the care they need where it is most appropriate, can reduce the demand for more intensive (and expensive) LTC or hospital care. There are waitlists for LTC, and “alternate level care” seniors occupying hospital beds, which contributes to higher costs, lower hospital capacity for other treatment, and lower quality of life and declining health for the affected seniors. In addition, a significant proportion of below-median-income seniors face housing affordability challenges. Ensuring housing needs are appropriately met can improve the quality of life of seniors and prevent premature entry into higher levels of care. Differences in the availability of services and how they are funded across the country can inform strategies to improve accessibility and capacity. Notably, Quebec has more seniors’ care spaces, lower vacancy rates and lower rent charges than other provinces, while providing comparatively more support to senior households through tax credits.

Overall, limited fiscal capacity, growing demand due to demographic aging, and the growing costs and complexity of care needs for aging seniors all present a significant conundrum for policymakers. There is a daunting challenge in determining the appropriate level of support, ensuring it is well targeted, and allowing for seniors to choose what is best for them. Government policies should encourage seniors to remain independent as long as possible, but also ensure they have adequate financial resources and access to support services if they are required.

Levels of Care Needs

There are multiple options for housing accommodations as seniors age, and the choice will depend on their preferences, families, level of need, and the affordability and accessibility of the various options. This section discusses the different care needs that seniors might have as they age. It also illustrates the continuum of care: seniors choosing assisted/supportive living accommodations or receiving home care will have a range of needs, and care must be flexible enough to suit an individual’s needs.

Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) are a set of essential everyday tasks and activities that individuals typically need to perform to live independently and maintain their overall well-being. These activities are often used in healthcare and long-term care settings to assess an individual’s functional abilities and to determine their level of independence. When someone experiences limitations in one or more of these areas, they may require varying degrees of assistance or care, ranging from minimal support to full-time care. Health professionals use ADL assessments to develop care plans and tailor assistance to meet an individual’s specific needs and promote their overall quality of life. The specific ADLs may vary slightly in different contexts, but the core activities are as follows.

  • Personal hygiene and grooming: including bathing/showering, caring for teeth, medication management, etc.
  • Dressing: choosing appropriate clothing and putting it on independently.
  • Eating: feeding oneself and preparing simple meals.
  • Mobility and transferring: being able to walk, get in and out of bed, or independent transferring from one surface to another (such as from a bed to a wheelchair).
  • Toileting and continence: The ability to get on and off the toilet, maintain personal hygiene, and manage incontinence, if necessary.
  • Medication management: the ability to follow medical care plans without the need for assistance or reminders to take necessary medications.
  • Instrumental Activities of Daily Living: activities that are not essential to basic self-care, but are crucial to independent living in a community such as managing finances, planning and preparing meals, doing laundry, going shopping for essential items, etc.

Notably, most of the ADLs have little to do with direct healthcare needs. Instead, they are a set of daily activities that could be provided by different types of support services including meal delivery, housekeeping, laundry services, and social activities. Seniors requiring support with some ADLs could benefit from one or more support services, even if they do not have advanced healthcare needs. Healthcare is an important component of supporting seniors to remain independent, however, many of the activities that are required for independence fall outside the traditional scope of healthcare.

The options for support available to seniors are directly related to their care needs. Those who are able to live independently can choose their accommodations based on lifestyle and preferences. Those requiring occasional or minimal assistance can remain in their homes and receive help from family, other informal caregivers, and possibly publicly funded home and personal care services, or they could choose to privately pay for some services such as regular housekeeping or food delivery services. They might also choose to move to a retirement home or community where meals and other services are provided, as well as ongoing opportunities for socialization. As care needs become more intensive, seniors may require ongoing or live-in support from a combination of public or private home and nursing care services, family, or an informal caregiver at home. In the retirement home setting, there are many options to address increasing care needs. However, as care needs become greater, affordability plays a factor in how long a senior might stay in a retirement home before moving to LTC where care needs are generally fully subsidized by government, and room and board charges are limited by regulations.1

At home, those requiring hands-on or total assistance require significant and ongoing care. At this stage, a caregiver must be available at all hours to assist with many basic ADLs, and the options for care become more limited. Those without an available caregiver in the home will likely be best served by residing in long-term care homes that have health providers on site at all times of day. Depending on their health conditions, hospice and palliative care might also be appropriate for end-of-life care. Increasing numbers of retirement homes are offering heavy care and dementia care services, and publicly funded home care can be accessed to supplement some of the costs. This still, however, presents a significant financial burden to seniors. Often, even though a retirement home can safely and appropriately meet the care needs of a senior, LTC becomes the preferred option. Most often, this is because of the cost differential between what the government will subsidize in a LTC setting versus the limited home-care services available to offset privately paid retirement home care costs.2

Availability and Options for Care Based on Needs

The options for care and assistance with ADLs reflect progressive levels of need. As care needs become more intense, the options become more limited (and/or costly). Those requiring ongoing care can choose to live in a long-term care home, or might be able to remain in a residential setting – home, retirement home, assisted living facility – if they and their families have the resources to supplement publicly provided services, and if the appropriate services are available privately. Of course, those that are independent have a full range of choices for where they might want to live, except those places reserved for people with higher care needs. More than three-quarters (78 percent to 91 percent) of Canadians would prefer to receive care while continuing to live in their homes as they age, but only one-quarter (26 percent) expect that they will be able to do so (Sinha 2020, March of Dimes 2021). The different types of seniors’ accommodations and short-term respite care programs are described in Box 1. It is important to note that there is overlap between many care options and levels of need – two seniors with similar care needs might use different combinations of services. This is particularly the case for people with minimal to moderate needs for support. Similarly, the options will vary in terms of availability and costs depending on the location, the ownership and operation models of the different residences, and the level of public coverage and involvement in different levels of care. The next section provides a summary of the availability and costs of various seniors’ living arrangements across the country, focusing on provinces with larger populations (BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec).

Long-term Care

There are 2,076 long-term care homes in Canada. At first glance, LTC in Canada appears to have a comparable amount of beds and financial resources in comparison to international peer countries. Canada has close to the average number of LTC beds relative to the size of the senior population, but still fewer than countries such as New Zealand, Finland, Germany, and Switzerland. It also has a comparable proportion of the senior population receiving LTC care and homecare, relative to international peers (Wyonch 2021). It spends more per capita than the OECD average on funding LTC but spends less than other OECD countries as a proportion of GDP. The GDP proportion of health spending for inpatient LTC is above average (Wyonch 2021).

Despite higher-than-average spending, there are long waitlists for LTC in many Canadian provinces. In Ontario, there were, as of Oct. 2022, almost 40,000 seniors waiting for LTC, and 76,000 receiving care; this means the waitlist currently exceeds 50 percent of care capacity (OLTCA).3

The median wait time was 130 days in 2021/22 (213 days for entrants from the community, and 80 days for hospital entrants) (HQO). In Quebec, the waitlist is much smaller (4,235 as of June 2023). However, seniors might still wait up to two years for a placement (Bonjour Résidences).

The cost of long-term care varies across provinces, but charges payable by the resident to cover room and board are generally standardized by regulation within each province. For example, in Ontario the maximum monthly co-payment for LTC is $1,986.82 – $2,838.49 depending on whether the room is shared or private. In Quebec, room and board charges for public and contracted private long-term care homes (CHSLD or centre d’hébergement et de soins de longue durée) are $1,294.50 – $2,079.90, depending on the type of room. Quebec also has unsubsidized (uncontracted) private CHSLD, where the average monthly costs are between $5,000 and $8,000, depending on resident’s needs (Bonjour Résidences).4More than half of LTC homes (54.4 percent) and the majority of retirement homes are privately owned and operated. There is no consistent ownership pattern across the country: in five provinces, the majority of LTC homes are privately owned and operated, with the other provinces having majority public ownership. All LTC homes in the Territories are publicly owned. Both publicly and privately owned LTC homes provide ongoing care for some of the most vulnerable members of society. At both public and private LTC homes, healthcare is publicly funded and most support services will be included in room and board rents. Seniors must require significant care to qualify for LTC.5

Individuals requiring support who don’t have a caregiver in the home are much more likely to be admitted prematurely to LTC homes. Indeed, about one in nine new entrants could potentially have been cared for at home or in a retirement home setting. These new residents are more likely to have previously lived alone or in a rural area where formal and informal supports are less likely to be available (CIHI 2020b).

Retirement Homes

Retirement homes offer a wide variety of services and programs targeted at different client types. These include those who are fully independent and wish to live in a congregate setting for the lifestyle and social benefits, those with mild to moderate care needs, those with heavier care needs, and those who require specific dementia care programs and supports. In Ontario, for example,15 percent of homes provide dementia care, 34 percent provide assistance with feeding, and the majority provide services to assist with other ADLs (Roblin et al. 2019). Prices of retirement home care vary significantly by location, as well as by amenities and services offered as they are market driven (and are not generally directly government subsidized). Various provinces have senior rental accommodations that provide care needs: in Quebec the services are called “seniors’ residences”; in BC “assisted living”; in Ontario “retirement homes”; and in Alberta, “supportive living.”

Many retirement homes offer more extensive health and personal care services. These additional services increase costs for seniors since they are either charged as additional services or will be incorporated into higher room and board costs. In Ontario, if these additional services are provided by the retirement home, the additional services are not directly publicly subsidized. In some cases, residents in retirement homes might also receive home care or assisted living support that is provided by a separate agency, either publicly or privately. Most retirement homes are privately owned and operated. Their activities and levels of care provision are regulated by provinces, but prices will be determined by market factors and the amenities and services offered in each location.

In Ontario, retirement communities are regulated by the Retirement Homes Act, 2010 (RHA), and are licensed and inspected by the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA).6Each retirement community can offer up to 13 care designated services, for example, assistance with dressing and personal hygiene, medication management, and providing meals. Services might also be publicly provided through home care. About half of seniors currently living in retirement homes have care needs that would qualify them for publicly provided home and community care. Home care services supplement the care services in the retirement home at no cost to the resident and assist with affordability of the retirement living option for seniors with care needs.

In Quebec, private seniors’ residences are rental facilities that are mainly occupied by people over 65, and offer various services such as nursing care, meal services, housekeeping, and recreation. Private seniors’ residences must hold a certificate of compliance from the Government of Quebec ensuring they comply with health and safety rules. Similarly, in Alberta, the provincial government sets accommodation standards for supportive living facilities. Supportive living operators require a licence if they provide accommodation and support services to more than three people, provide meals or housekeeping services, and arrange for safety and security services. Alberta also has Designated Supportive Living where access is determined by an assessment by a health professional, room and board charges are determined by the Alberta government, and accommodations provide 24-hour publicly funded health and personal care services on site.

In British Columbia, retirement homes are divided into categories: independent living, and assisted living.7Assisted living is divided into three classes: i) seniors and persons with disabilities who have chronic or progressive conditions, ii) mental health care, and iii) substance use care. Assisted living residences provide housing, hospitality services and support services, and they may be privately paid, publicly subsidized, or a combination of both. Independent living seniors’ residences are essentially retirement homes targeted to seniors who need minimal assistance and are not generally publicly subsidized. For seniors requiring assistance, assisted living spaces are publicly subsidized based on income: a maximum of 70 percent of after-tax income goes to housing and support services in assisted living. However, there is a minimum fee of $1,093.50 per individual ($1,665.60 per couple) and maximum monthly rate for publicly subsidized assisted living is based on market rates for rent and hospitality services in the same geographic area.

Though individual retirement homes and assisted living facilities might have waitlists, there are fewer concerns about overall capacity. Across provinces, both standard and heavy care spaces are at least 10 percent vacant (Figure 1). 

Alberta has the highest vacancy rate for standard care spaces (26.8 percent) and the lowest vacancy rate (10 percent) for heavy care spaces, suggesting a need to transition some standard spaces to heavy care spaces as the population continues to age and care needs intensify across the senior population. Ontario notably has the fewest seniors’ care spaces relative to the size of the senior population, particularly for heavy care units (3.0 spaces per 1,000 seniors over age 75). A long waitlist for LTC and few spaces for seniors with less intensive – but still significant – care needs suggest a need to expand the number of spaces available for seniors across the care continuum. Notably, British Columbia has the highest vacancy rate for heavy care spaces, despite having relatively few spaces (14.4 per 1,000 seniors over 75). It also has the highest rent among provinces for heavy care spaces ($6,726/month) and the largest increase in rent between standard care and heavy care spaces (Figure 2).

Quebec has more than three times the amount of seniors’ housing spaces in comparison to other provinces, relative to the size of the senior population. It also has the lowest median rent for both standard and heavy care spaces by a large margin. Median rent for a standard care space ($1,873/month) is about half the cost of other provinces, and a heavy care space in Quebec ($3,566/month) costs less than a standard care space in Ontario ($3,845/month).8Quebec having triple the supply but similar vacancy rates to other provinces suggests that lower prices are a result of a significantly higher supply of seniors’ care spaces. 

Demand is also likely to be higher in Quebec due to policies that indirectly support private seniors’ residences and LTC through medical expense and home care tax credits.

Home Care

Home care covers a broad range of services, including personal support for ADLs, homemaking services such as housekeeping, laundry services and meal preparation, and can include professional services such as nursing, occupational therapy, or social work. Across Canada, about 6.1 percent of households receive home care services and 2.8 percent of households have unmet home care needs (Table 1). Unmet need is highest in British Columbia and Ontario, and lowest in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Notably Quebec and Atlantic Canada also have the highest proportion of households receiving home care.

In Ontario, publicly covered services are generally tailored to an individual’s needs and delivered in their residence (a home in the community or retirement home), following an assessment by a case manager or health professional. Services are delivered by third-party agencies that can operate on a non-profit or for-profit basis. In Quebec, seniors can access discounted home help through the Financial Assistance Program for Domestic Health Services program. After approval, seniors receive a discounted hourly rate for various home care and support services provided by qualifying domestic help and social economy businesses.9 Many services provided by home care agencies and domestic help businesses can also be purchased directly through the private market. This option gives a completely free choice of services, without the need to qualify for government assistance, but must be paid for out-of-pocket. In BC, home support services can be purchased privately, or can be publicly subsidized, based on eligibility. If publicly subsidized, home care recipients are charged a daily rate for services, based on their income.1010 In Alberta, home care is narrowly defined as providing medical support for people so they can live in their homes. After an eligibility assessment, services are provided under Alberta Health Care Insurance meaning that if a service is not insured, it is not publicly funded.

Over half of home care services are paid from government sources (52.2 percent), and 7.3 percent are covered by insurance. More than a quarter (27 percent) are paid for out of pocket (Gilmour 2018). Government sources are more likely to cover health home care services than support services. In 2015/2016, more than half of nursing care services (54.3 percent) and 42 percent of other healthcare services had a monthly cost (Table 2).

In many cases, seniors receiving home care will also receive help from informal caregivers (for example, family members, neighbors, and adult children). Informal care reduces the direct public costs of supporting a senior to maintain their independence in their home, but it can represent economic deadweight loss if informal caregivers reduce their hours of paid work.11In addition to formal in-home services, there are also seniors’ day-programs to provide care throughout the day, and respite care beds for when informal caregivers might need additional support or if the senior needs additional care for a short period of time.

Assisted Living

Depending on the jurisdiction, “assisted living” services overlap somewhat with home care and retirement home services, but generally target those with higher care needs. 

Formal Home Care Received and Unmet Home Care Needs of Canadian Households, 2021

Assisted living programs are defined differently across the country. In Quebec, “Resources intermediaries” provide housing and access to support services for individuals with minor to moderate loss of autonomy. In British Columbia, Assisted Living provides housing, hospitality, and social and recreational services to adults requiring a supportive environment due to physical and functional health challenges. In Ontario, Assisted Living Services provide support for people with special needs who require services at a greater frequency or intensity than home care, but without the medical monitoring or 24/7 nursing supervision that is provided in long-term care. Services are provided by third-party agencies that operate on a not-for-profit basis. In Alberta, Designated Supportive Living is broken down by levels of service, ranging from 24/7 provision of health and personal care services for those living independently, to providing specialized residential dementia care (AGO 2021).

Assisted living services are generally publicly funded, with limited room and board co-payments when housing is included in services. They are targeted to cover gaps in the continuum of care between independent living options and long-term care, and the services provided can overlap with both to ensure appropriate levels of support are provided and seniors are not prematurely admitted to long-term care.

Inappropriate Care Setting: ALC Patients in Hospitals

Alternate Level of Care patients are people occupying an inpatient bed, but whose needs no longer require acute level care. ALC patients occupy 12.7 to 27.5 percent of beds in acute-care centres across the provinces and represent 15.5 percent of all acute-care bed-days in Canada (excluding Quebec) in 2021-2022 (CIHI 2023). ALC patients are most often admitted to acute care as a result of an injury or illness, but subsequently cannot be discharged home as their clinical condition requires new additional support and/or care services such as home care, transfer to a long-term care facility, or another form of specialized care (rehabilitation, psychiatric or complex). In some cases, ALC patients might be admitted for predominantly social reasons: no acute or rapidly accelerating medical condition is present, but certain circumstances force patients and caregivers to turn to emergency departments (for example, real or perceived failing of social services or lack of adequate community supports) (Durante et al. 2023).

ALC patients represent a complex health system challenge with many contributing factors. Lack of access to preventative and primary care services, or to home care and other social services, can result in patients going to emergency rooms when an alternate level of care would be more appropriate. Similarly, a lack of capacity in home care or long-term care can result in ALC patients remaining in hospitals for extended periods of time. Both scenarios represent an inefficient use of limited (and expensive) hospital resources and constrain capacity to provide acute care. From a financial perspective, each ALC patients represent a cost of $730 to $1,200 per day to Canada’s healthcare systems (Whatley 2020).12

While inefficient spending is concerning, preserving limited acute care bed capacity is necessary to prevent bed shortages and ensure accessibility for Canadians. Canada has fewer hospital beds relative to the size of the population than most OECD countries, and high occupancy rates in acute care beds show that the system is strained. While there is no agreed upon “optimal” occupancy rate, 85 percent is often considered the maximum rate to reduce risks of bed shortages. The average across OECD countries was 69.8 percent in 2021. Canada was one of three countries to have a rate over 85 percent and had the fewest beds per capita in the high-occupancy group (OECD 2023).13If Canada reduced the number of ALC patients and the number of days an ALC patient spends in hospital, it could significantly reduce acute care capacity concerns. A 13 percent reduction in ALC days would be sufficient to bring acute care occupancy down to below the 85 percent occupancy threshold to prevent hospital bed shortages, since ALC patients currently occupy 15.5 percent of capacity.

There are opportunities to reduce ALC patient days, both from within the hospital setting and by improving and expanding community and support services. Increasing the number of seniors’ care spaces, increasing the scope and provision of home care, improving primary care access and ensuring that necessary support services are accessible and affordable for seniors would all alleviate the strain on hospitals by preventing admissions and allowing for more rapid discharge of ALC patients to alternate levels of care. Within hospitals, incentives for physicians, families, and the hospital generally encourage longer than optimal stays. Front-line clinical staff (especially physicians) have strong incentives to avoid conflict and risks resulting from acute-care discharges (Chidwick et al. 2017).14Hospitals in some provinces charge a daily fee to recoup the costs resulting from ALC hospitalizations. The fees are generally equivalent to the daily rates for room and board in LTC, not the full cost of an acute care bed. This means that there is little incentive for seniors or their families to prefer one care setting over the other if a patient is destined for long-term care. The hospital, however, cannot charge patients this fee unless they need continuing or chronic care – destined for more or less permanent institutional care.15Hospitals, therefore, have an incentive to designate ALC patients as chronic and in need of long-term care, so that they can recoup costs. In Quebec, hospitals do not charge fees related to ALC. In that case, seniors and their families have an incentive to prefer hospital care over home care, a retirement home or a long-term care home since these options do have financial costs. Provinces should examine their hospital fee policies related to alternate level care to ensure that clinicians, hospitals, and seniors are not incentivized to provide or receive more advanced healthcare services than are necessary to meet the needs of the patient. Hospitals should also evaluate policies and guidance for clinicians and front-line workers on making discharge decisions to reduce referral to long-term care when it can be avoided.

Addressing the unmet care and housing needs of seniors could significantly reduce the number of ALC patients and their lengths of stay in hospitals. Reducing ALC days and admissions would likely be sufficient to reduce the strain on acute care capacity to levels more comparable to international peers and reduce the risk of bed shortages.

Costs of Providing Seniors’ Care in Different Settings

Different settings and types of service provision, with different public programs and levels of subsidization, make comparison across provinces challenging. In this section, I compare public costs of seniors’ healthcare across the country and provide estimates of the public costs of care provision across different settings in Ontario and Quebec.16

Rather unsurprisingly, per capita health expenditure increases with the age of the population, since older and frailer individuals have increasingly intensive healthcare needs. There is some variability between provinces, with New Brunswick and British Columbia having lower spending per capita on care for seniors. Across the country, more than $1 of every $4 of provincial government healthcare spending goes to caring for people over 75 years of age. From 2010-2020, total provincial and territorial government spending on healthcare for the population over 75 increased by 40.5 percent to $52.77 billion, while total government spending on healthcare increased by 56 percent. In some provinces, increases in seniors’ healthcare spending have been driven by growth of the senior population (ON, NS) (Figure 3). Some provinces have contained these increasing costs by reducing per capita spending on seniors’ healthcare (NB, AB, NFL). In others, both increasing senior populations and increased per capita spending contribute to spending growth (QC, PEI, MB, SK and BC). Only in PEI and BC has spending on seniors’ care kept pace with overall increases in healthcare spending.

Meanwhile, seniors are spending more on their own healthcare and living expenses. In 2019, the average senior household (75+) spent $14,440 on housing and $3,260 on healthcare (Table 2). Healthcare costs have stayed relatively constant in real terms from 2010 to 2019, and increased less than total consumption, though private insurance premiums have increased by 117 percent. Food and shelter costs, however, have become more expensive. Seniors who rent their homes are facing challenges in addition to affordability, with more than half of those in unsubsidized rental units having inadequate, unsuitable, or unaffordable housing (Table 3). As needs increase with age, the cost and availability of options will factor into the lifestyle choices seniors make about where they live.

In Ontario, a senior with high care needs would likely qualify for long-term care or assisted living. If those services aren’t readily available, they might require a stay in hospital as they wait for an assisted living or long-term care bed to become available. Regardless of the care setting, the personal costs are similar.17

From a public finance perspective, however, there are different costs associated with different levels of care. A hospital stay for someone over 80 years of age ranges in cost from $4,306 to $11,361 per episode of care. Long-term care costs the province $5,870.70 per month per patient, and the average cost of assisted living is about $1,494 per month per patient.18Previous analysis has shown that the total cost of care is lower in heavy care retirement spaces than in LTC, and that public costs are significantly lower due to residents paying privately for services in retirement homes (Table 3). Public spending is lower if people receive advanced care services at home, or in retirement homes, than in long-term care. Hospitals are the worst option. They have the highest public cost and are also a limited resource. Every hospital bed occupied by an alternate level care patient (ALC) carries an opportunity cost and makes the bed unavailable for acute or critical care, or surgical rehabilitation and monitoring.

The picture for high needs patients in Quebec is similar to that in Ontario, but with notable distinctions. There are no private costs for a hospital stay in Quebec, and room and board charges for public LTC range from $1,294.50 per month to $2,079.90. Quebec has private LTC homes that cost residents $5,000 to $8,000 per month, depending on level of care need.19The public cost of a hospital stay for a patient over 80 years of age is higher in Quebec than in Ontario ($5,627-$14,488), as is the level of subsidization of public LTC ($5,837.73 – 9,379.60 per month per client, depending on type of room). There are similar public costs associated with a hospital stay or a month in LTC in Quebec, but the need to preserve scarce hospital resources remains, meaning that from a public cost perspective, the preference would be for high needs patients to be in LTC homes. If the senior can afford it, a heavy care bed in a private retirement home or private LTC home is most beneficial, from a public finance perspective. Research has shown that the government pays 79.7 percent of residential care costs and 81.7 percent of nursing home costs, or about $53,500 per user of a residential care facility and $82,400 per user of a long-term care facility. Comparatively, home care is estimated to cost $7,140 to $23,634 per client, depending on level of care need (Clavet et al. 2022).20

For mild to moderate needs, seniors can depend on informal caregivers, public or private homecare services, nursing services, or they can choose to live in retirement homes offering the services they need. In many cases, some combination of services is required. Home care services in Quebec can be heavily discounted depending on the level of assistance qualified for under the “Domestic Help” program. In Ontario, those qualifying for public homecare services don’t have out-of-pocket costs.21 In both provinces, homecare services can also be acquired privately, in which case there is no direct public cost.22 In both provinces, retirement homes are generally privately owned and operated and offer a variety of services across a spectrum of care needs. In Ontario, the average rent for a retirement home is $3,845 per month, representing a less affordable option when compared to average household costs.23 In Quebec, retirement homes represent a slight savings compared to the average senior household’s expenses.24Quebec has many more senior living spaces than Ontario, relative to the size of the population. It also has a much lower vacancy rate. As discussed in detail in the next section, different tax credits in each province provide different levels and types of support which likely affect both the accessibility of different types of support services and the distribution of seniors’ receiving care in each setting.

Tax Credits to Support Seniors’ Care

In addition to publicly provided services and subsidies on home and health care services, there are also tax credits that reduce the cost of support services and equipment for seniors. Quebec makes more expansive use of tax credits to support seniors remaining in their homes as they age than Ontario. People over 70 years of age in Quebec can claim up to 38 percent of eligible expenditures through the refundable tax credit for home support services.25 Services eligible for the tax credit include meal preparation or delivery services, nursing care services, home and personal care services (such as housekeepers, landscapers, or aides to assist with bathing, dressing, feeding etc.). For homeowners, only eligible services can be refunded. For tenants, however, a portion of rent can be considered if it includes eligible home support services. Similarly, retirement home residents can claim the portion of their rent that relates to meal preparation and home care services. The total amount that can be refunded takes into account total income, level of dependence, family structure, and the eligible expenses incurred throughout the year. An independent senior could qualify for a maximum of $7,020 in refundable credits based on the maximum service spending of $19,500. Dependent seniors can be eligible for up to $9,180 in refundable credits. The credit is reduced when family income exceeds $69,040.26

In Ontario, residents over 70 years of age can claim up to $1,500, or 25 percent of eligible expenses up to a maximum of $6,000, through the Ontario Seniors Home Care Tax Credit. Eligible expenses fall into several categories including walking aids, hearing devices, wheelchairs, hospital bed for home use, oxygen, vision, dental, or home nursing care. The maximum tax credit is reduced by five percent of family net income over $35,000, meaning about a quarter of households with a member over the age of 75 will qualify for the maximum credit. Claimable expenses are amounts over 3 percent of net income. The Ontario home care tax credit covers both services and equipment but does not allow for rent deductions, while the Quebec credit is for eligible service expenses only. Notably, the level of support provided by the Ontario tax credit is lower than that in Quebec. It covers a smaller proportion of the population and refunds a significantly lower amount. See Boxe 2 for examples of the difference in refundable tax credits for a senior couple in each province.

The federal government and Quebec also offer tax credits for improving home accessibility. The federal home accessibility tax credit is available to people 65 years of age or older, or those with a disability. Eligible recipients can claim up to $10,000 related to renovations or purchasing equipment that improves the accessibility and safety of the home. The renovations must be of an enduring nature and could include wheelchair ramps, walk-in bathing installations, and support bars. Quebec’s tax credit is similar to the federal credit. The Quebec Independent Living tax credit for seniors covers 20 percent of eligible expenses over $250.

There are also tax credits to support informal caregivers. At the federal level and in Ontario and Quebec, immediate family members can claim a tax credit for providing care for a disabled relative. Quebec also offers a refundable tax credit of 30 percent of total expenses for caregivers paying for respite services that provide a short-term replacement for care and supervision of a disabled relative.27

The tax credits available to help seniors stay in their homes are quite expansive, and generally consider age and household income levels. In some cases, the tax credits have restrictive criteria, such as requiring the person receiving care to have a disability, making them more targeted to the population requiring more intensive and ongoing care. In Quebec, the home support tax credits go a step further than in Ontario by including a portion of rent related to services, making retirement home care partially eligible, and by separating tax credits related to devices and services. The tax credits are also available to different age groups: tax credits for home equipment become available at age 65 under federal and Quebec subsidies and are available to those 70 and older in Ontario. Both Ontario and Quebec have reserved tax credit eligibility for home nursing care and other home care services to those age 70 and over. The timing of the availability of tax credits loosely follows the progression of care needs as people age and is targeted at the population in need of assistance – without requiring medical assessments and case managers to determine eligibility.28

However, there is a significant difference in the level of support provided between Ontario and Quebec. As the examples in Boxes 2 and 3 show, the question of whether a senior lives in an owned home or rented accommodations (including retirement homes) significantly changes the level of tax subsidization received in Quebec, but not Ontario. In either case, seniors are likely to qualify for more refundable tax credits to support independent living in Quebec than in Ontario.

Senior Households and Spending Patterns

Developing public policies to support seniors as they age should be informed by seniors’ preferences and levels of need. Some senior households requiring lifestyle or healthcare services have the financial resources to invest in adapting their homes, or to pay for services. 

Many seniors are homeowners and have the ability to downsize or transition to a retirement home or other rented accommodations using the unlocked equity to pay for their accommodations or supplement publicly provided healthcare and lifestyle support services. A significant number of senior households, however, face affordability challenges and are in inadequate or unsuitable housing. This section provides a brief overview of the household spending patterns of seniors and their housing needs, with the aim of informing policies that best provide targeted support to seniors most in need.

The Household Spending Survey from Statistics Canada provides insights into the number, composition, and spending patterns of households across the country. According to the 2019 survey data, there were about 1,991,750 households with at least one person over the age of 75, representing 13.5 percent of the total.29 Nova Scotia has the highest proportion of households with seniors (15.24 percent) and Alberta has the lowest (10.77 percent). The data show that while the majority of households with seniors are living within their means, senior households with below-median incomes, and those who rent, are more likely to face affordability challenges or have difficulty accessing adequate and suitable housing.

Most seniors live alone or as a couple (42 percent and 35 percent, respectively). The distribution of seniors among housing types is similar to the rest of the population; a majority live in single detached houses (54 percent) and about 3 in 10 live in apartments or condos. The majority of senior households own their home without a mortgage, and seniors are more likely to own a second property than the population average. The majority of households with seniors depend on government transfers as their main source of income (52 percent), followed by other forms of income (27 percent) and employment earnings (17 percent).30In general, 75+ households have lower spending and consumption than the average household and spend a lower proportion of their income.31 Senior households spend less than the average in all categories except healthcare and custodial services (though they still spend less on household operations overall). Examining average income and consumption patterns across provinces shows that the average household with at least one person over the age of 75 can meet its needs and still reserve about 30 percent of income as savings, a similar rate to households overall.

Averages, however, can mask more worrisome spending and consumption patterns at the lower end of the income distribution. Households with below-median income have consumption expenditures that exceed their incomes.32 Shelter and food costs represent about 46 percent of consumption expenditures across lower-income households in general, and 53 percent for lower-income households with seniors. Shelter costs exceed the 30 percent affordability threshold for below-median-income households with seniors.33 It is difficult to determine the level of need from these data alone, since many seniors have significant savings to support their consumption. Lower-income seniors who do not have significant savings would be more likely to face affordability challenges. Ontario has the lowest spending on shelter for lower-income households with seniors ($8,862), and those households have significantly lower shelter costs than the average across lower-income households in the province.34 In Quebec and Alberta, shelter costs exceed 35 percent of consumption expenditure for senior households. In British Columbia, seniors who rent spend 46.1 percent of their income on shelter.

The importance of shelter costs to seniors’ expenditures, particularly below-median income households, warrants further investigation. Statistics Canada’s housing indicators provide further details. Households where the primary maintainer is over the age of 85 generally have higher rates of housing inadequacy, unaffordability, and unsuitability than the average across all households (Table 4). Seniors show higher rates of “core need” housing than the general population (see Box 4 for definitions of housing indicators).

In all major provinces, more than a third of renters are in housing that is inadequate, unsuitable, or unaffordable. There are some challenges related to housing indicators for homeowners. Rates of inadequacy, unsuitability, or unaffordability are generally lower for seniors 75+ than for the overall household average. Those who rent are more likely to face difficulties. Notably, more than a third of senior renters in ON, BC and AB cannot afford to move into more suitable housing.35 Quebec, comparatively, has lower rates of core housing need than the other provinces, suggesting that a higher proportion of households could afford to move to adequate or suitable housing. This implies that Quebec has fewer affordability challenges relative to the other provinces, particularly for renters and seniors, despite similar levels of inadequate, unsuitable, or unaffordable housing.

As seniors age, it becomes more likely that they will downsize housing to unlock equity and/or move to more appropriate housing. Similarly, they might choose to transition to renting accommodations in seniors’ care spaces. Between 2016 and 2021, 36 percent of over-75 households sold their homes (CMHC 2023).36This rate has declined over time, showing that more and more seniors are remaining independent for longer and choosing to remain in their homes as they age. Older seniors are more likely to transition to rented accommodations (including private market rental units, retirement homes and LTC) and are also more likely to require supportive services. Declining rental rates and a higher proportion of seniors owning their homes shows a preference for aging-in-place and shows that many seniors can maintain their independence for longer than seniors in previous cohorts. Most seniors would prefer to age in their homes, but many are concerned that they won’t be able to afford to do so. Some seniors are pooling their resources and investing in shared accommodation and care services (Sylvestre-Williams 2024).

There are also “naturally occurring retirement communities” when the majority of inhabitants of a multi-unit dwelling are seniors, or seniors choose to purchase housing in close proximity to each other. These naturally occurring communities could provide opportunities to improve the efficiency of home and community care services. They also reveal the preferences for housing and support services of seniors with adequate financial resources to be strategic and plan for their desired retirement. This could provide insights for new models of seniors’ care that reduce costs by supporting the independence of lower-wealth seniors and encouraging seniors with means to contribute to the costs of their support services.

Overall, the data on household spending and income show that the average household is able to afford its needs, although spending patterns change with age and require higher healthcare expenditures. In general, 75+ households have lower spending and consumption than the average household.37 Seniors that have below-median incomes, however, are facing affordability challenges similar to other households in the category, particularly with regard to shelter. These insights suggest two important factors to consider in developing seniors’ care and support policies. First, many senior households have sufficient resources to fund some lifestyle support and healthcare services, meaning there could be opportunities to develop markets for seniors’ support services to supplement the under-provision of publicly provided home care. Second, some seniors are facing affordability challenges, meaning targeted support policies that holistically consider housing, support, and healthcare needs could reduce the likelihood that these seniors will prematurely enter long-term care or become ALC patients in hospitals. For the Silo, Rosalie Wynoch /C.D. Howe Institute.

Read the full report here.

References


Clavet, Nicholas-James, Réjean Hébert, Pierre-Carl Michaud, and Julien Navaux. 2022. “The Future of Long-Term Care in Quebec: What Are the Cost Savings from a Realistic Shift toward More Home Care?” Canadian Public Policy 48: 35-50.

Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2017. “Seniors in Transition: Exploring Pathways Across the Care Continuum.” Available at https://www.cihi.ca/en/seniors-in-transition-exploring-pathways-across-the-care-continuum

_____________. 2023. Inpatient Hospitalization, Surgery and Newborn Statistics, 2021-2022. Available at https://www.cihi.ca/en/hospital-stays-in-canada-2021-2022

Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2023. Housing Market Insights. https://assets.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/sites/cmhc/professional/housing-markets-data-and-research/market-reports/housing-market-insight/2023/housing-market-insight-canada-m11-en.pdf

Chidwick, Paula, Jill Oliver, Daniel Ball, Christopher Parkes, Terri Lynn Hansen, Francesca Fiumara, Kiki Ferrari et. al. 2017. “Six Change Ideas that Significantly Minimize Alternate Level of Care (ALC) Days in Acute Care Hospitals.” Healthcare Quarterly 20(2): 37-43.

Durante, Stephanie, Ken Fyie, Jennifer Zwicker, and Travis Carpenter. 2023. “Confronting the Alternate Level Care (ALC) Crisis with a Multifaceted Policy Lens.” Briefing Paper. University of Calgary School of Public Policy 16(1). Available at https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/76748

Nuernberger, Kim, Steve Atkinson, and Georgina MacDonald. 2018. “Seniors in Transition: Exploring Pathways Across the Care Continuum”. Healthcare Quarterly 21(1): 10-12.

Office of the Auditor General of Ontario (AGO). 2021. Value-for-money audit: assisted living services. December. Available at https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en21/AR_AssistedLiving_en21.pdf

Gilmour, Heather. 2018. Formal home care use in Canada. Statistic Canada. September 19. Available at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2018009/article/00001-eng.htm#archived

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2023. Hospital Beds and Occupancy. Health at a Glance 2023: OECD indicators. Available at https://oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/bdd23022-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/bdd23022-en

Roblin, Blair, Raisa Deber, Kerry Kuluski, and Michelle Pannor Silver. 2019. “Ontario’s Retirement Homes and Long-term Care Homes: A Comparison of Care Services and Funding Regimes.” Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement 38(2): 155–167.

Statistics Canada. 2022. Home care use and unmet home care needs in Canada, 2021. Available at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220826/dq220826a-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. 2019. Survey of Household Spending. public use microfile.

Sylvestre-Williams, R. 2024. Don’t want to end up in a nursing or retirement home? Some seniors are finding creative solutions – on their own terms. Toronto Star. March 18. Available at https://www.thestar.com/business/personal-finance/dont-want-to-end-up-in-a-nursing-or-retirement-home-some-seniors-are-finding/article_1253a964-d26f-11ee-964a-c71e7e78215f.html

Whatley, Shawn. 2020. “Patient Hotels: An Established Transitional Solution to Overcrowding.” The Hill Times. February 3. Available at https://www.hilltimes.com/2020/02/03/ patient-hotels-an-established-transitional-solution-to-overcrowding/233033.

Wyonch, Rosalie. 2021. Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure: Seniors Care in Canada After COVID-19. Commentary. C.D. Howe Institute. Available at https://www.cdhowe.org/public-policy-research/ounce-prevention-worth-pound-cure-seniors-care-after-covid-19

How Canada Can Help Repair Today’s Global Trading System

The article below (Furthering the Benefits of Global Economic Integration through
Institution Building: Canada as 2024 Chair of CPTPP) was first published by the C.D. Howe Institute by Paul Jenkins and Mark Kruger.

Introduction

Over the last 10 to 15 years, the global economy has become fragmented. There are many reasons for this fragmentation – both economic and geopolitical. A particularly important factor has been the inability of the institutions that provide the governance framework for international trade and finance to adapt to the changing realities of the global economy.

This erosion is reflected in the cycles of outcome-based measures of globalization, such as trade-to-GDP ratios. Research indicates that the development of institutions that promote global integration is highly correlated with more rapid economic growth. To secure the benefits of economic integration, the international community should re-commit to a set of common rules. This should involve the renewal of existing institutions in line with current economic realities.


But institutional renewal alone is not sufficient. Nurturing and growing new institutions are also critical, especially ones reflecting the realities of today’s global economy. Most promising in this regard is the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).


The CPTPP is seen as a “next generation” trade agreement. It takes World Trade Organization (WTO) rules further in several key areas, such as electronic commerce, intellectual property, and state-owned enterprises.
Expansion of CPTPP represents a unique opportunity to strengthen global trade rules, deepen global economic cooperation on trade and sustain an open global trading system. The benefits for Canada of an expanded CPTPP are further diversification of its export markets and deepened ties with countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

Trusted Policy Intelligence


The challenge to enabling broad-based accession to CPTPP is geopolitical, reflecting the rising aspirations of the developing world, the associated
heightened contest between democracy and autocracy, and the prioritization of security. Indeed, for many, today’s security concerns are at the forefront, trumping economic issues. We argue that recognition of the economic benefits
of global economic integration must also remain at the forefront, and that research presented in this paper shows that institutional building is at the core
of securing such benefits.


As 2024 Chair of the CPTPP Commission, Canada has an opportunity to play a leadership role, as it did in the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions 80 years ago, by again promoting global institution building, this time through the successful accession of countries to the CPTPP, both this year and over the long run.

  1. Cycles in Global Economic Integration
    Former US Fed Chair Bernanke points out that the process of global economic integration has been going on for centuries. New technologies have been a major force in linking economies and markets but the process has not been a smooth and steady one. Rather, there have been waves of integration, dis-integration, and re-integration.
    Before World War I, the global economy was connected by extensive international trade, investment, and financial flows. Improved transportation – steamships, railways and canals – and communication – international mail and the telegraph – facilitated this “first era of globalization.” The gold standard linked countries financially and promoted currency stability. Trade barriers were reduced by the adoption of standardized customs procedures and trade regulations. The movement of goods, capital, and people was relatively unrestricted.
    The outbreak of World War I frayed global economic ties and set the stage for a more fragmented interwar period. The Treaty of Versailles imposed
    punitive measures on Germany, exacerbating economic hardships. Protectionist policies, such as high tariffs and competitive devaluations, became widespread as countries prioritized domestic interests.
    The collapse of the gold standard further destabilized international finance. In contrast to the cooperation seen before the war, countries pursued economic nationalism and isolationism.
    Protectionism increased in the 1930s as a result of the dislocation caused by the Great Depression. In an attempt to shield domestic industries from foreign competition and address soaring unemployment, many countries imposed tariffs and trade barriers.
    The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the United States exemplified this trend, triggering a series of beggar-thy-neighbour policies. These protectionist policies exacerbated the downturn and contributed to a contraction in international trade that worsened the severity and duration of the Great Depression.
    Mindful of the lessons of the 1930s, a more liberal economic order was established in the aftermath of World War II. The creation of the Bretton Woods Institutions – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – provided the principal mechanisms for managing and governing the global economy over the second half of the 20th century.
    Building on the GATT, the formation of the World Trade Organization in 1995 provided the institutional framework for overseeing international trade and settling disputes. China became the 143rd member of the WTO in 2001 and almost all global trade became subject to a common set of rules.
    The rise and fall of international economic governance are reflected in the cycles of outcome-based measures of globalization. Looking at trade openness, i.e., the sum of exports and imports as a percentage of GDP, the IMF divides the process of global integration into five periods: (i) the
    industrialization era, (ii) the interwar era, (iii) the Bretton Woods era, (iv) the liberalization era, and (v) “slowbalization” (Figure 1).
    Many factors have contributed to the plateauing of trade openness in the last 10 to 15 years. The fallout from the Global Financial Crisis was severe and the recovery was tepid. Brexit, with its inward-looking perspective, has disengaged the UK from Europe.
    Populist protectionism has led to “re-shoring” in an effort to address rising inequalities and labour’s falling share of national income. There has been far-reaching cyclical and structural fallout from COVID-19.
    And while the AI revolution portends significant opportunities, uncertainties over labour displacement abound.
    Geopolitics has also played a critical role. Security concerns have become more important, trumping economic issues in the eyes of many. This has led to multiple sanctions, along with export and investment controls, being imposed to protect national security interests.
    The IMF has carried out several modelling exercises that estimate the consequences of fragmentation if further trade and technology barriers were to be imposed. The studies employ a variety of assumptions regarding trade restrictions and technology de-coupling. In summary, the cost of further fragmentation ranges from 1.5 to 6.9 percent of global GDP. As with all modelling exercises, a degree of caution is warranted. At the same time, these studies should not be viewed as upper-bound estimates because they disregard many other transmission channels of global economic integration.
  2. De Jure and De Facto Globalization
    In assessing the evolution of globalization, however, it would be misleading to focus too narrowly on outcome-based measures such as the trade-to-GDP ratio depicted in Figure 1.
    The data compiled by KOF, a Swiss research institute, provide a more nuanced view of global economic integration. KOF constructs globalization
    indices that measure integration across economic, social, and political dimensions. Its globalization indices are among the most widely used in academic literature. KOF’s data set covers 203 countries over the period 1970 to 2021. Our focus here is on KOF’s economic indices.
    In terms of economic globalization, KOF looks at the evolution of finance as well as trade. Moreover, one of the unique aspects of KOF’s work is that it examines globalization on both de facto and de jure bases.
    KOF’s de facto globalization indices measure actual international flows and activities. In terms of trade, it includes cross-border goods and services flows and trading partner diversity. For financial globalization, its indices measure stocks of international assets and liabilities as well as cross-border payments and receipts.
    KOF’s de jure globalization indices try to capture the policies and conditions that, in principle, foster these flows and activities. For trade globalization,
    these include income from taxes on trade, non-tariff barriers, tariffs, and trade agreements. De jure financial globalization is designed to measure the institutional openness of a country to international financial flows and investments. Variables to measure capital account openness, investment restrictions and international agreements and treaties with investment provisions are included in these indices.
    The trends in KOF’s de facto and de jure economic globalization indices are shown in Figure 2. Both globalization measures increased rapidly from 1990
    until the Global Financial Crisis. Both measures subsequently plateaued. In 2020, as the global pandemic took hold, the de facto index plunged to its
    lowest level since 2011. In 2021, it recovered half of the distance it lost the previous year. The de jure index has essentially been flat for the last decade.
    There has been a sharp divergence between KOF’s de facto and de jure trade globalization measures in the last five years (Figure 3). By 2020, de facto trade globalization had dropped to a 25-year low. Although it recovered somewhat in 2021, it remains well below the average of the last decade. In contrast, de jure trade globalization levelled off after the Global Financial
    Crisis. It reached a modest new high in 2019 and has essentially remained there since then.
    The trends in financial globalization are almost the reverse of those of trade globalization. De facto financial globalization continued to increase through
    2020 and dipped slightly in 2021. De jure financial globalization has been essentially flat over the last two decades (Figure 4).
    The KOF researchers provide convincing econometric evidence that economic globalization supports per capita GDP growth. Importantly,
    their analysis shows that institutions matter. They demonstrate that the positive impact on growth from trade and financial globalization comes from
    institutional liberalization rather than greater economic flows. Through a series of panel regressions, the researchers show that it is the de jure trade and financial globalization indices that are correlated with more rapid per capita GDP growth. In contrast, there is no significant relationship between growth and the de facto indices.
    KOF’s conclusions are consistent with the work of Rodrik, Subramanian and Trebbi who examine the contributions of institutions, geography, and trade
    in determining relative income levels around the world. They find that institutional quality “trumps everything else.” Once institutions are controlled for, conventional measures of geography have weak effects on incomes and the contribution of trade is generally not significant.
    Thus, to recapture the economic benefits of free trade and open markets, countries need to recommit to finding ways to further de jure globalization; that is, putting in place the institutional building blocks in
    support of enhanced trade and financial integration.
  3. Geopolitical Realities
    Institutional reform, however, requires trust and mutual respect among partners. Many would argue that such trust and respect is in limited supply
    today, especially between the United States and China. The United States is willing to endure the costs of heightened protectionism to purportedly
    strengthen the resilience of its economy and secure greater political security. This has resulted in multiple sanctions, particularly in areas of digital technologies.
    In response, China, amongst other measures, has imposed export controls on critical minerals used in advanced technology in defence of its geopolitical goals.
    Yet, as discussed by Fareed Zakaria in a Foreign Affairs article, The Self-Doubting Superpower, China has become the second largest economy in the world richer and more powerful within an integrated global economic system; a system that if overturned would result in severely negative consequences for China.
    For the United States, its inherent strength has been its commitment to open markets and its vision of the world that has considered the interests of others. In many respects, it remains uniquely capable of playing the central role in sustaining the global economic system.
    Following a recent trip to China, Treasury Secretary Yellen stated that “the relationship between the United States and China is one of the most consequential of our time,” and that it “is possible to achieve an economic
    relationship that is mutually beneficial in the long-run – one that supports growth and innovation on both sides.”
    This means that the United States would need to accommodate China’s legitimate efforts to sustain a rising standard of living for its citizens, while
    deterring illegitimate ones. For China, it would mean a clear and abiding commitment to an open, rules-based global economic system.
    It appears that there is currently no clear path forward for this change in mindset, given what many see as insurmountable geopolitics in both the United States and China. Yet, history shows that achieving and sustaining long-term economic growth is in every country’s best interest, and that such growth is best secured through ongoing global economic integration.
  4. A Way Forward
    Recent discussions at the IMF’s Annual Meeting in Marrakech about IMF quota reform, including quota increases and realignment in quota shares to
    better reflect members’ relative positions in the global economy, are important signals of possible renewal.
    Similarly, calls to revamp the World Bank’s mandate, operational model, and ability to finance global public goods, such as climate transition, reflect a growing consensus that the Bretton Woods Institutions must change in the face of today’s realities.
    But institutional renewal alone is insufficient.
    Broad-based accession to the CPTPP represents a unique opportunity to strengthen global governance overall, and to address common challenges in ways that benefit both countries as well as the global economy.
    The CPTPP sets a high bar, requiring countries to:
  • eliminate or substantially reduce tariffs and other
    trade barriers;
  • make strong commitments to opening their markets;
  • abide by strict rules on competition, government
    procurement, state-owned enterprises, and
    protection of foreign companies; and
  • operate within, as well as help promote, a
    predictable, comprehensive framework in the critical
    area of digital trade flows.
    The United Kingdom formally agreed to join the
    CPTPP in July 2023. Once its Parliament ratifies
    the Agreement, the UK will join Australia, Brunei
    Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico,
    New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam in the
    trading block.
    Such a diverse membership clearly demonstrates
    that countries do not have to be geographically close
    to form an effective trading block.
    A half-dozen other countries have also applied
    to join the CPTPP, with China’s application having
    been the earliest received.
    Petri and Plummer estimate that joining the
    CPTPP would yield large economic benefits for
    China and the global economy. For the latter, the
    boost to global GDP would be in the order of $600
    billion annually. The United States in joining would
    gain preferential access to rapidly growing Pacific Rim
    markets. Much of the additional market access would
    come from China’s opening of its service sector.
    Industrial policy and state-owned enterprises,
    however, will continue to play a much larger role
    in China than they do in Western economies. The
    key for China is to demonstrate that a socialist
    market economy (i.e., one that has a mixed capitalist
    market and government-controlled economy) can be
    consistent with fair trade.
    The process of China joining the CPTPP will
    undoubtedly be time-consuming. It took 15 years of
    negotiations before China joined the WTO in 2001.
    This was five more years, on average, than it took
    those countries that joined after 1995.
    The challenge for Canada, and subsequent chairs,
    is to ensure that China’s entry maintains the high
    standards CPTPP members have met so far.
    Broad based accession to the CPTPP, including
    the United States and China, however, is best viewed
    Page 8 Verbatim
    Trusted Policy Intelligence
    as a long-term goal. China would need to undertake
    unprecedented reforms, involving complex political
    challenges, including Taiwan’s potential accession. For
    its part, the United States would need to step well
    back from its current mercantilist mind set, which
    risks worsening.

Canada as Chair in 2024

While efforts to renew existing global institutions to better reflect current economic realities are important, we see promoting broad accession to the CPTPP as the best means to turn today’s global economic fragmentation around.
At the heart of the global economic system is the open trading framework put in place at Bretton Woods in 1944. Many would see today’s fragmentation as becoming more acute, rather than getting better, due to geopolitical divisions.
But further fragmentation is no way to save the open, rules-based global trading system that has served so many countries so well for so long.


While restrictions reflecting legitimate security concerns are inevitable, an open, competitive trading system remains in the best interests of all countries.
As 2024 Chair of the CPTPP Commission, Canada has an opportunity to contribute to turning around the fragmentation of today’s global trading system and moving the global economy back along a path towards a
more open, rules-based trading system.


An important goal for Canada’s chairmanship would be to clarify the rules of accession. This would be a big step forward in sustaining expansion of CPTPP. While today’s geopolitical realities surrounding the applications of both China and Taiwan represent a particularly challenging area to advance, significant progress in other areas must be made. It should accelerate inclusion of Costa Rica, Uruguay, Ecuador, and Ukraine, all of whom have applied. And it should help move forward discussions with South Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand, who have expressed interest in joining.


Over and above all that, however, at a more strategic level, Canada should also champion discussion and understanding of why building towards the long-run goal of broad accession to CPTPP is important. Open and inclusive institutions are at the core of providing the benefits of global economic integration to all countries.


Canada will also be Chair of the G7 Summit in 2025. This, along with the various ministerial and officials’ meetings leading up to the Summit, offers another critical avenue for Canada to take a leadership role in sustaining and promoting an open, rules-based global trading system.

    Quality Over Quantity: How Canada’s Immigration System Can Catch Up


    Canada’s immigration point system is designed to select skilled immigrants who have the potential to contribute to the country’s economic growth and meet its evolving skills needs. However, Canada faces challenges in fully leveraging increased immigration levels to enhance the well-being of Canadians due to weaknesses in capital investment and a quantity/quality trade-off in selecting economic immigrants. Furthermore, recent reforms may work at cross purposes to this goal. They include category-based selection that targets low-paying occupations, which can discourage capital investment, and a recent surge in the number of temporary residents in low-wage jobs that also may have adverse effects on the quality of potential candidates for permanent residency.
     

    This study compares skilled immigration selection policy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, with the objective of identifying key areas for improvement in Canadian policy. The skilled immigration point systems in Canada and Australia share some similarities, with both prioritizing a two-step immigration process, placing an emphasis on English proficiency and workforce age, and requiring pre-migration credential and English proficiency assessments. However, the two countries differ mainly in their strictness of criteria and their emphasis on occupational and language skills. Furthermore, Australia has shown more agility and creativity in its skilled migration reforms. Reforms in the UK and New Zealand have also put them ahead in the competition for talent.
     

    Based on this international comparison, the author makes recommendations for improvement. They include: 1) Setting a Minimum Points Threshold for Eligibility. As it is, Canada imposes no minimum points threshold for eligibility in its Express Entry points-based system. 2) Considering a Pre-admission Earnings Factor. Studies show the importance of pre-immigration earnings in predicting immigrants’ outcomes after arrival. The UK, New Zealand and Australia include this factor. 3) Boosting Standards under the Language Requirement. Official language skills are as important in predicting the initial earnings of principal applicants admitted under Canada’s Express Entry system as pre-immigration Canadian work experience, and even more important than educational level and age at the time of immigration. 4) Raising Business Immigration Numbers. Canada faces the challenge of weak business investment but is failing to select business immigrants with entrepreneurial skills, putting it at a disadvantage compared to competitors like Australia and the UK.

    The author thanks Tingting Zhang, Charles DeLand, Rosalie Wyonch, Charles Beach, Jodi Kasten, Mikal Skuterud and anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft. The author retains responsibility for any errors and the views expressed.

    Read the full report here.

    For the Silo, Parisa Mahboubi/C.D. Howe Institute.

    Parisa Mahboubi

    Parisa Mahboubi

    Parisa Mahboubi is a Senior Policy Analyst and leads the C.D. Howe Institute’s human capital policy program. Her research interest focuses on social policy with a concentration on demographic, skills, education, and labour market concerns. In addition to authoring research studies, she regularly writes a column for the Globe and Mail’s business section.

    Canadians Should Understand Their Private Healthcare System – And How It’s Changing


    The Study in brief

    The intense debate pitting private versus public healthcare in Canada needs a reality check. Private aspects of healthcare exist in different forms and to varying degrees across Canadian provinces, largely depending on their respective legislation and regulations.
     For healthcare professionals providing insured services, most bill through the public system, but not all. The current and future scope of their role is the pressing issue at hand.


     Health Canada has had success in eliminating extra billing and user fees under sections 18 and 19 of the Canada Health Act. However, provinces have considerable authority in determining key terms like “medically necessary” or “insured services” that are covered under the Act. The result has been a diversity of approaches.
     Provinces have the legislative tools to constrain the growth of private healthcare, if that is their objective. Similarly, provinces have considerable authority to increase the scope of private healthcare, if that is their objective (even within the current parameters of the CHA), by revising provincial legislation or regulation.


     Either way, the specific policy direction undertaken would be different for each jurisdiction, as the legislative and other barriers to private healthcare (such as market size limiting the viability of private delivery) vary across provinces. This Commentary provides clarity about the different forms of “private” healthcare and a comprehensive view of the current policy landscape defining the balance between public and private healthcare.

    All health systems incorporate some mix of public and private healthcare. In 2021, public sector spending in Canada amounted to 73 percent of total healthcare expenditure, exactly equivalent to the OECD average of 73 percent (OECD 2023). Yet these summary figures tell us little about the public/private contours of any healthcare system. Private healthcare can manifest in a multitude of ways, and the precise configuration of the relationship between public and private healthcare tells us more about the system than the absolute level of public or private spending.

    Under the Canadian Constitution, provinces have wide-ranging jurisdiction over the provision of healthcare in Canada, both explicitly (hospitals) and through judicial interpretation (“matters of a merely local or private nature,” as well as authority over insurance). The Canada Health Act (CHA) does provide a national framework (supported by federal transfer funds) that has, for several decades, ensured a certain level of congruence across provinces in the provision of public healthcare. But each province’s health legislation is unique, and it is this interplay between federal and provincial legislation that provides a regulatory space for private healthcare. Variation across provinces means private healthcare in Canada is not a uniform phenomenon.

    The objectives of this Commentary are fourfold: first, to describe the ways we can understand “private” healthcare; second, to explain the different ways provincial legislation permits or prohibits aspects of private healthcare; third, to discuss the supply- and demand-side variables causing private healthcare to take its current shape across provinces; and fourth, to analyze the relationship between provincial healthcare legislation and the CHA with reference to the expansion of private healthcare in Canada. This Commentary does not address the utility of private healthcare per se. Rather, it focuses on the confusion inherent in so many discussions referencing “private healthcare.” Both exponents and critics of private healthcare can pick and choose from numerous manifestations of private healthcare to support their respective positions. By requiring proponents and opponents to clarify precisely what they mean by “private healthcare,” the potential costs and benefits can be more clearly identified in each case.

    What do we mean by “Private Healthcare”?

    Critics of private healthcare point to the costs and inequities of the American healthcare system to argue against it, while proponents reference European mixed public/private models to show how effective it can be. Any discussion of the role of private healthcare should therefore first clarify what, precisely, is meant by “private healthcare.” Healthcare systems can generally be broken down into three constituent parts: delivery, financing, and regulation. Any of these elements can include a public or private (for-profit or not-for-profit) component (Wendt et al. 2009; Böhm et al. 2013; Marchildon 2022).

    Delivery of Healthcare Services

    Much healthcare in Canada is delivered by private providers. When medicare was introduced in Saskatchewan in 1947, physicians vehemently protested. A settlement was reached only when the province agreed to recognize physicians as private independent operators rather than as employees of the state (Marchildon 2020). This model was followed by other provinces as they introduced their own medicare legislation. Ambulance services across Canada are often private, with these companies negotiating service contracts with health authorities or provinces. Nursing care in hospitals and district nursing programs is generally provided publicly, but private nursing firms (such as the not-for-profit VON for home care, or for-profit firms supplying temporary placements in hospitals) are also commonly utilized.

    Historically, hospitals in Canada (especially those founded by religious orders) were largely based on a private, independent, not-for-profit model. As hospitals became amalgamated into health authorities, they were consolidated in provincial governments’ financial statements and their operation was generally subsumed within the public infrastructure – even as many (especially larger) hospitals with boards of directors remain not-for-profit organizations.

    Key Takeaways

    What, exactly, is a “not-for-profit” (NFP) organization in Canada, and how does it differ from a private or a public one? Legally, NFPs are “bodies corporate without share capital”: in other words, revenues must be directed to the mission of the organization rather than to shareholders. NFPs also enjoy specific tax breaks. Unlike fully public bodies, however, they are self-governing. Generally, they will have boards of directors who are accountable for funds raised and debts incurred. Like directors in a private company, these directors have a fiduciary responsibility to use resources wisely. Unlike private companies, directors of NFP organizations are directly responsible to the corporate entity rather than to members (i.e., shareholders). The corporate entity, in turn, is responsible to the government jurisdiction (federal or provincial) wherein it is incorporated.

    Increased attention has been paid to private surgical companies. Individual medical specialists are generally considered independent private operators who contract their services to medical facilities or universities, although their payment models often include elements such as base salary, research stipend, fee for service, etc. Surgical specialists have in many provinces established discrete private businesses where bulk services (a specific number of certain surgical services) are provided over a set period for a negotiated price (e.g., the Shouldice Hernia Centre in Ontario or Scotia Surgery in Nova Scotia). They may use public infrastructure (hospital operating rooms) or provide their own physical space. There is considerable debate whether contracting these services is superior to establishing them as part of the public system (e.g., Day 2023; Lewis 2022; Longhurst 2023). However, as the funding and administration of these services is controlled by provinces (or provincial health authorities), and as patients use these services as they would fully public services (i.e., free at point of delivery), they are not considered a “two tier” form of access to healthcare. Patients cannot access these services directly; rather, they are routed through the public system. Grey areas of private service delivery, described in more detail below, include the private delivery of medically necessary diagnostic services, infusion clinics on hospital sites, and certain forms of virtual care.

    Also relevant to the discussion of private delivery is the type of private entity under consideration. “Private” hospitals that are not-for-profit may in fact operate more like a public institution than a private one; here one might usefully distinguish institutions which are functionally embedded in provincial healthcare system (e.g., via accounting practices) from those that operate at arm’s length. Conversely, evidence from the United States suggests private not-for-profit hospitals can also show the kind of profit-driven behaviour more commonly seen in for-profit entities (Silver-Greenberg and Thomas 2022). Others have argued that small independent private health clinics (such as Algomed or Bluenose, in Canada) are in a different category from large American corporate entities (such as the Hospital Corporation of America) (Deber 2003).

    Financing of Healthcare Goods and Services

    As noted, some privately provided services (such as ambulance services or surgical clinics) are often funded publicly. And, while it is not as common, publicly provided services can be funded privately (e.g., in systems where money follows the patient, private insurers may be able to find places for their patients in publicly funded hospitals). Charitable NFP organizations can be another source of healthcare funding. In Canada, much attention is paid to the division of healthcare into services that are, or are not, insured publicly. For example, the provision of cosmetic surgery (undertaken for aesthetic reasons) is commonly private, and is paid for privately and directly out-of-pocket. The private provision of services that are publicly funded (such as cataract or hip replacement surgery), as noted, is more controversial, but is not uncommon within Canada. The main point of controversy in Canada is whether publicly insured services should also be available for direct purchase to individuals within the private sector, bypassing the public system altogether.

    Out-of-pocket financing in Canada is largely targeted to healthcare services that are not covered by public insurance (the precise list of insured versus non-insured services varies across provinces). Only 12.6 percent of Canadian healthcare expenditure in 2021 was comprised of out-of-pocket spending (WHO 2023); the remainder was covered by public or private insurance.

    So how is healthcare insurance structured in Canada?

    Public insurance: In all provinces, most medically necessary healthcare services are largely funded on a tax-based model, where citizens support healthcare services through their general tax contributions. Some provinces do require provincial inhabitants to pay “healthcare premiums” but, as these contributions simply go into the provinces’ general operating funds, rather than a bespoke account used only for healthcare, these premiums can be considered simply as another form of taxation. As a condition of receiving federal health transfers, the CHA requires that each province has a public insurer. Böhm et al. (2013) argue, for this reason, that states such as Canada and Australia, which are structured on a public insurance system, are more properly considered to possess “national health insurance systems” rather than “national health systems,” as typified by the UK.

    Each province has the authority to determine what it insures publicly (which is why coverage for “medically necessary services” varies across provinces). In general, medically necessary services provided by physicians and in hospitals are covered (as required by the CHA) but, as explained below, this is much more complicated than it appears. Services such as vision care and dental care provided in hospitals are also generally covered, as are diagnostics, physiotherapy, and other related services.

    Provinces are not required to cover everyone: those in the armed forces or federal penitentiaries, for example, are insured by the Government of Canada. Although provincial healthcare systems provide many of the services for these specific groups, the provinces are reimbursed by the federal government. Those injured in the workplace are usually covered by workers’ compensation. Certain categories of migrants (such as refugees) are also insured federally until they receive permanent citizenship status, whereupon they fall under provincial insurance. Depending on the type of work and the length of stay, migrant workers are insured both through provincial health plans and workers’ compensation programs (for a fuller discussion, see Fierlbeck and Marchildon 2023).

    Most provinces expand public health insurance beyond what is required by the CHA. While the CHA does not specifically mandate the public provision of dental care, optometry services, and pharmaceuticals outside of hospitals, provinces generally have some form of coverage of these services for vulnerable groups. These are determined either by cohort (e.g., seniors or children), service (pharmacare or dental care), income category (below a certain ceiling), or some combination of all three. These programs vary considerably across provinces.

    Private health insurance: Formally, there are several types of private health insurance, each serving a different function.

    • Supplementary health insurance covers any goods or services that are not covered by public insurance. In Canada, these include companies like Blue Cross, Sun Life, or Canada Life Assurance. Any healthcare system incorporating public insurance will also have an array of private and private not-for profit supplementary health insurance companies which generally cover vision care, physiotherapy, pharmaceuticals, travel insurance, etc.
       
    • Complementary health insurance completes the cost of a service, where public or social insurance only pays partial costs. In many countries, for example, public insurance will only cover around 60 percent – 80 percent of hospital stays, pharmaceuticals, primary care, and sometimes even emergency care. In these cases, private insurance will “top up” the remaining costs so patients do not have to pay out-of-pocket. Some insurers may ask patients to pay the remaining costs up front, and reimburse them after the fact; others may cover the costs at point of payment. This “top up” system is not common in Canada, but in Quebec (which mandates pharmacare insurance) private insurers are allowed to cover any co-pays for pharmaceuticals that patients must pay directly for amounts not covered by the mandated insurers.
       
    • Substitutive health insurance applies in systems (e.g., in Germany) where citizens earning above a set income are allowed to opt out of public insurance systems altogether, and use private for-profit insurance to cover medical needs.
       
    • Duplicative (or “dual” or “parallel”) health insurance is the source of most political controversy in Canada. Duplicative insurance privately covers services that are also offered in the public sector. Four provinces (Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and PEI) explicitly prohibit duplicative insurance, three (Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Quebec) explicitly permit duplicative insurance under certain conditions (i.e., only for certain services, only if the insurer is private not-for-profit, only for services provided by practitioners outside of the public system), and three (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick) neither expressly permit nor prohibit it (Appendix Table A2).1 The advantage for those with duplicative insurance is that they can access these services quicker, or access more enhanced variants of these services. It is really with this particular kind of private insurance that the issue of “two tier” healthcare arises. The argument in favour of duplicative insurance is that it “takes pressure” off of the public system (e.g., Globerman 2020), while other research has found that public wait times actually increase when publicly insured services become privately available. One reason given for this is the depletion of resources from the public sector. Policy analysts also suggest that those offering private services have incentives to keep public wait times longer, as patients will only find private services attractive if they cannot easily access them in the public sector (e.g., Besley et al. 1998; Duckett 2005). Countries such as the UK that permit duplicative insurance nonetheless continue to have considerable issues with long wait lists in the public health system (e.g., Duncan et al. 2023).
       
    • Private not-for-profit insurance: Another category of health insurance that causes much confusion is statutory health insurance (SHI; also referred to as “social health insurance” or the “Bismarck health system”). This system is quite common in Europe, although the precise configuration varies across states. In this model, health insurance is not covered in the first instance through general taxation revenue. Rather, workers and employers pay into “sickness funds,” which provide health insurance benefits depending on the terms negotiated. These sickness funds are technically “private” bodies operating on a not-for-profit basis. They are, however, highly regulated in their authority and function. Because of the degree of regulation – and the importance of the social function they fulfill – they are generally considered a form of “public” insurance. However, governments tend to differ in their approach to consolidating these operations into government expenditures.2  Jurisdictions using this model of health insurance have different methods for covering unemployed or retired persons, often including funds directed from government taxation revenue or from pooled sickness funds.

    Regulation of Healthcare Financing and Delivery

    The nature of “private” healthcare is determined not only according to the way services are delivered or funded but, more importantly, according to the way they are regulated. Permitting a “private” form of health service or insurance is not an all-or-nothing condition; governments have the authority to determine the terms and conditions under which these services are to be offered. There can, for example, be limitations on the kinds of services offered or insured, on the professions allowed to offer them, on the prices that can be set for them, where they can be provided, and so on. These limits, as discussed below, can be enough to discourage the provision of health services even when these services are technically legal, as the terms within which private services are allowed may not be sufficiently profitable. In the European Union (EU), governments are more restricted in their ability to regulate private healthcare services because, ultimately, the ethos of the EU is to maintain the free movement of goods and services. Fully public health services are under the authority of member states but, where states utilize private components in their healthcare systems, attempts to limit the ability of private health firms to compete can result in charges of breaching fair-competition regulations. In Canada, however, there are fewer restrictions on the limits that provinces can place on private health providers, given the political will to do so. The regulatory aspects of healthcare financing and delivery will be addressed in more detail in the next section.

    Private-public Partnerships

    Another category of “private” healthcare is the implementation of private-public partnerships (P3s) in healthcare (McKee et al. 2006). In the past, this has been limited to large capital projects, such as the construction of hospitals, but more recently the implementation of P3s has expanded to the point where verdicts on their effectiveness can be rendered. Importantly, there is no single model of public-private partnerships; each is generally negotiated on its own terms. Proponents explain the logic of this approach as capturing the advantages of both systems: governments can access more competitive financing for projects, while firms undertake the process of construction more efficiently with each day of overrun increasing the cost of a project. Critics argue that the logic of P3s rests in the effectiveness of offloading costs to the other partner, and that the party with the most expertise in negotiating P3 contracts (generally large multinational firms with experience in this area) are those who are most able to shift costs. At the same time, because P3 projects allow costs to be diffused over a long period of time, budget-conscious governments have been eager to enter into these agreements.

    Empirical evidence suggests that the effectiveness of P3 projects in Canada has been quite varied (Murphy 2008; Vining and Boardman 2008; Siemiatycki 2015). More recently, provinces have expanded the use of P3s to include large outlays for medical infrastructure. These agreements, often known as “value partnerships” or “managed equipment service agreements,” generally focus on diagnostic equipment – providing MRIs, CT scans, and X-rays – and they range from 15 to 30 years. The private partner will source, install, and maintain this equipment over the life of the agreement. As the private partner owns the equipment and covers the cost of installation, there are minimal upfront costs for the public partner. Other advantages of this model include a reduction in equipment downtime, decreased administrative burden in monitoring equipment maintenance, protection from unpredictable costs involved in equipment failure (CADTH 2022), and a replacement plan for equipment that reaches the end of its recommended useful life. At the same time, long-term service contracts can diminish flexibility in accessing different equipment over the lifespan of the contract, and the private contractor may demand confidentiality agreements which could diminish the transparency and accountability of the process. Like other forms of P3s, the effectiveness of managed equipment services will largely depend on the specifics of negotiated agreements, including clearly defined outcomes and expectations, as well as transparent and accountable protocols and public scrutiny of this documentation (CADTH 2022).

    Internal Markets

    While “internal markets” are not formally an aspect of private healthcare per se, they frequently arise in discussions of the utility of private healthcare mechanisms in the reform of public healthcare. Most famously employed in the Thatcherite reforms of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, this model simply divides public healthcare professionals into “purchasers” of acute care services (usually primary care professionals) and “providers” of acute care services (usually hospitals). The theory underlying the purchase-provider split is that GPs will select the best value for money, obliging hospitals to compete by offering quality services for less. While the results of Britain’s experiment with the internal market are mixed at best (for a discussion of the internal market reforms see, e.g., LeGrand, Mays, and Mulligan 1998; and Ham 2007), a number of other countries (such as the Netherlands) have since incorporated this mechanism into their own healthcare systems.

    Conclusions

    The nature and extent of private healthcare provision has always been a subcurrent in discussions of Canadian healthcare. As Flood and Archibald clearly demonstrated in 2001, however, the precise nature of private healthcare depends upon the structure of provincial legislation. In general, provinces with a critical mass of population and wealth had to be more actively restrictive in their policy instruments regarding private healthcare, with smaller provinces able to enjoy a more liberal legal framework safe in the knowledge that low demand would make the opportunity immaterial. While legal frameworks are generally holding firm, the practice and context of healthcare provision have been changing rapidly. Both supply and demand pressures are making private healthcare more available and more attractive to those requiring healthcare.

    This Commentary has not discussed the provision of duplicative private health insurance in Canada. The experience of post-Chaoulli Quebec has shown that the demand for duplicative insurance is still limited given the current policy framework (see Quesnel-Vallée et al. 2020). Nonetheless, if private service provision becomes widespread, and the demand remains constant (or increases), provinces that permit private insurance (but have not experienced demand) may well see its tentative development within their jurisdictions, while provinces where duplicative insurance is proscribed may experience greater political pressure to allow it.

    Laverdière (2023) has argued that a “plausible interpretation” of the CHA is that “transfer reductions can only occur when the public system in a province or territory does not provide satisfactory access to medically necessary services.” This is not an incorrect observation per se; it merely confuses the legal and political aspects of the CHA. Whether provinces have met the contractual conditions to expect the funds set out by Ottawa is a largely technical matter. The success that Health Canada has had in eliminating extra billing and user fees under sections 18 and 19 is illustrative of the utility of a clear and specific set of requirements that are monitored and enforced (with the added incentive that provinces can recoup any past losses if they make prospective changes). More complicated are the charges that provinces have been non-compliant with the CHA beyond sections 18 and 19. Because provinces have considerable authority in determining key terms like “medically necessary” or “insured services,” it is difficult to make justiciable claims against provinces for non-compliance more broadly. The contest over diagnostic services and virtual care will be an interesting one. But the terms of the dispute are more political than legal. As in the past, the federal government is using the CHA as a political statement to affirm its commitment to public healthcare; as such, the legal outcome of the controversy may be less important than the political battle.

    Is the CHA obsolete? The demand that the CHA should be revised, either to prevent or facilitate private healthcare, is misplaced. The instruments determining the extent of private healthcare largely rest, as they always have, with the provinces and the political will of their electorates. In the past, the best barrier to privatization has been an effective and responsive public system. For this reason Ottawa’s role in funding provincial healthcare remains paramount. Provinces have the legislative tools to constrain the growth of private healthcare, if that is their objective. Similarly, provinces have considerable authority to increase the scope of private healthcare, if that is their objective (even within the current parameters of the CHA), by revising provincial legislation or regulation.

    Either way, the specific policy direction undertaken would be different for each jurisdiction, as legislation and other barriers to private healthcare (such as market size) vary across provinces. For example, should Ontario wish to expand the private provision of healthcare, it could simply rescind sections 15(a) of the Ontario Health Insurance Act and section 10(3) of the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act (along with the corresponding regulations). To expand the scope of private healthcare, the nine provinces that already allow physicians to opt out of the public insurance system have a number of mechanisms at their disposal. These include permitting physicians to charge above the current fee schedule where that is now explicitly prohibited, reimbursing patients who use private-sector physicians where they do not already do so, or permitting “dual” or “duplicative” insurance where it is currently prohibited. The greatest effect would be in the wealthier and more populous provinces where a critical mass of individuals who would be willing to pay to access these services would make private healthcare a viable commercial venture. The scope for expanding private healthcare in smaller provinces is more restricted, but still could be facilitated by, for example, allowing physicians to bill above the public fee schedule.

    Similarly, provinces can use legislative mechanisms at their disposal to further restrict the expansion of private healthcare by, for example, refusing to reimburse patients who have paid physicians directly for services listed as “insured services” (as some already do). Doing so could also potentially expand private healthcare by increasing the number of non-participating physicians (who are outside the purview of the CHA). However, this could in turn be addressed by restricting the fee schedule of non-participating physicians or, like Saskatchewan, by permitting liberal private care only up to the point that it is deemed to undermine public care. Moreover, simply by changing the definition of “insured services” from “medically required services provided by physicians” to “medically required services provided by physicians and nurse practitioners” (which can in some jurisdictions be done through orders-in-council alone), some provinces could forestall the expansion of private nurse-practitioner-run clinics. Provinces can also control the precise scope and nature of additional private healthcare services by tightly regulating the specific terms under which these services are permitted. Quebec, for example, has for years allowed private health insurance only for specific procedures; Saskatchewan permits private health insurance, but only if offered by non-profit entities. Privatization, in this way, does not necessarily entail a “wild west” of unrestricted commercial ventures. At the same time, provinces that pursue this route will also have to commit considerable resources for monitoring and ensuring compliance (where currently most provinces simply utilize a complaint-driven system).

    Canada’s unique federal system means that fears of privatization can also be useful in leveraging more funding from Ottawa. Rather paradoxically, provinces have an incentive not to contain the growth of private healthcare within their borders in order to make the case that more public funding is necessary. At the same time, Ottawa has agency with regard to going beyond the mandated provisions of sections 18 and 19. It could demand provinces cleave to the spirit of the CHA by publicly insuring services regardless of whether they are provided in the way they were when medicare was first conceived. Ultimately, however, governments are responsive to their electorates. The legal intricacies that exist in the nexus of provincial legislation and the CHA will always remain secondary to the wider political opposition to, or support for, private healthcare. To engage in this political debate, however, it is important to understand clearly what private healthcare is and is not, and how it manifests within the legislative landscape of each jurisdiction. For the Silo, Katherine Fierlbeck.

    Dr. Fierlbeck is cross-appointed to the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, the Department of International Development Studies, and the European Studies Program at Dalhousie University. She is a Senior Research Fellow at the Healthy Populations Institute, and is on the research committee for the MacEachen Institute for Public Policy.

    How To Reboot Ottawa’s Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

    The federal government has proposed regulations requiring the sale of a minimum numbers of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) in Canada (20 percent of all light vehicles in 2026, ramping up to 60 percent in 2030 and 100 percent in 2035). The flip side of this requirement is that the sale of internal combustion engine (ICE) light vehicles will be reduced and eventually prohibited in 2035.

    • This ZEV mandate will require an increase in ZEV sales from about 100,000 ZEV light vehicles in 2022 to 300,000 in 2026, 900,000 in 2030 and 1.5 million in 2035.
    • This paper examines whether or not Canadians will be able to buy enough ZEVs (either domestically produced or imported) to meet this ZEV mandate requirement. The findings show that Canada should be able to meet the 2035 100 percent ZEV mandate for about 270,000 passenger cars (only 18 percent of the market) but will be unlikely to meet the 2035 ZEV mandate for the 1,240,000 remaining light vehicles (pickup trucks, vans and SUVs/crossovers) comprising 82 percent of the market.
    • Canada cannot wait until 2035 to realize that the federal ZEV mandate will not be met. The gap between light-vehicle demand and forecasted ZEV light-vehicle supply will cause severe market disruptions. A better approach would be to reject a hardline ZEV mandate and instead to substitute a more flexible Plan B. Plan B should focus more on emissions rather than ZEV targets. For example, permitting some ICE light vehicles to be sold, particularly ones that can use renewable fuels. In addition, permitting plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and hybrids to be included as ZEVs.
    • Finally, the federal government may have to accept that the 100 percent ZEV target is not feasible by 2035, and therefore must include flexibility in the federal ZEV mandate to back away from the 100 percent ZEV target.

    A ZEV mandate is government legislation that imposes a requirement on the sellers of light vehicles to sell a certain minimum of ZEVs in a year. (ZEV is used interchangeably with BEV for battery electric vehicle in this paper. PHEVs can also qualify as ZEVs to a limited extent). The theory is that this minimum requirement will give certainty to vehicle sellers that there will be a market for ZEVs, and will therefore give an incentive to companies to construct ZEV manufacturing facilities. In essence, the ZEV mandate assumes that the demand for ZEVs will be there and will displace the demand for ICE light vehicles, and therefore the increase in supply of ZEVs will occur.

    The federal government has introduced a ZEV mandate for all of Canada. In December 2022, the federal government issued proposed regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Section 30.3 of these proposed regulations state that all sales of light vehicles (passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans and SUVs/crossovers) must meet the thresholds for ZEV sales in a year shown in the table to the right.

    Minimum Percentage of ZEV sales

    The flip side to a ZEV mandate is that it imposes a prohibition on the sale of ICE vehicles, plus a penalty for contravening this prohibition. A company selling light vehicles in effect has an ever-shrinking quota for the maximum number of ICE light vehicles that it can sell in a year (none in 2035).

    A company creates one credit for each battery electric vehicle (BEV) it sells. A sale of a PHEV with a range of more than 80 kilometres can also create a credit, but this ability is capped at 20 percent from 2028 onward. For example, a company selling 100 percent PHEVs in 2028 would only get credits for 20 percent.

    If a company’s sales create fewer credits than required by the ZEV mandate, it can still remain in compliance by using two mechanisms. First, it can buy credits from another ZEV company that has exceeded its ZEV mandate. This mechanism will likely provide hundreds of millions of dollars of extra revenue to companies such as Tesla. An alternative second mechanism would allow the company to create a credit by contributing about $20,000 to specified ZEV activities such as supporting charging infrastructure. This second mechanism is capped at 10 percent of the ZEV mandate for the particular year, and is only available for the years prior to 2031.

    For the Silo, Brian Livingston/The C.D. Howe Institute.

    The author thanks Benjamin Dachis, Daniel Schwanen, Dave Collyer and anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft. The author retains responsibility for any errors and the views expressed.

    Canada’s Surging Non-Permanent Resident Population Crisis

    Mahboubi, Skuterud – A Multi-Pronged Strategy for Managing Canada’s Surging Non-Permanent Resident Population
    January, 2024 – Recent years have seen an unprecedented increase in Canada’s non-permanent resident population, far surpassing increases in annual admissions of new permanent residents. This unbalanced growth in the two migration streams will inevitably result in a growing undocumented population and forced deportations. Both developments risk inflaming Canada’s immigration politics and undermining public confidence in the immigration system. It is imperative that the government take immediate steps to stem the ongoing growth in foreign student and temporary foreign worker entries. Here’s how it can do it.

    Recent years have seen an unprecedented increase in Canada’s non-permanent resident (NPR) population far surpassing increases in annual admissions of new permanent residents. This unbalanced growth in the two migration streams will inevitably result in a growing undocumented population and forced deportations. Both developments risk inflaming Canada’s immigration politics and undermining public confidence in the immigration system.  

    It is imperative that the government take immediate steps to stem the ongoing growth in foreign student and temporary foreign worker entries.

    Several factors have contributed to the NPR population surge, including ad-hoc programs aimed at expanding eligibility for permanent status, the well-documented postsecondary appetite for international tuition revenue, and eased employer access to temporary foreign workers, most notably in low-wage occupations.

    Statistics Canada estimates that by the fourth quarter of 2023, Canada’s non-permanent population had exceeded 2.5 million, while entries of new permanent residents remained below 500,000 and which the government has announced will stabilize in 2025. The tightening bottleneck in temporary-to-permanent residency flows is worsened because many permanent slots go to applicants residing abroad, not non-permanent residents.

    A key factor driving the growth in non-permanent inflows is the government’s repeated announcements of ad hoc programs aimed at easing the pathway to PR status for lower-skilled migrants who would otherwise struggle to clear the hurdle of the Express Entry skilled-based points system.

    Examples include the February 2021 decision to provide permanent status to all economic class candidates in the applicant pool regardless of their eligibility scores and the April 2021 provision of pathways to 90,000 “essential workers” including cashiers and truck drivers. And the government expanded the program in January 2023 to give PR status to undocumented construction workers and plans to broaden the program, allowing all undocumented people to apply for permanent status. 

    No wonder large numbers of migrants try their luck.

    But given limited permanent admissions, large numbers of justifiably hopeful NPRs will be unable to realize their dreams. As their study and work permits expire, many will be unable or unwilling to return to their home countries. This leaves them increasingly vulnerable to workplace exploitation, which can distort wage outcomes in lower skilled labour markets, and leaves them in poverty with no recourse to government supports because they are ineligible.

    Canada urgently requires a multipronged strategy to stem this ongoing NPR growth and restore the stability and integrity of the immigration system. In our view, policies should be aimed at helping applicants make better decisions about seeking NPR status in Canada by offering a straightforward, predictable system against which they can realistically assess their prospects.

    On international students, we recommend reintroducing the cap on off-campus work at 20 hours a week that was waived in October 2022 and recently extended to April 30. Continued policy punting is unhelpful in restoring predictability for prospective foreign students. Study permits have become de facto work permits, and brings job-seekers, not committed students.

    We also recommend restricting study permits to institutions of a certain standard. Designated Learning Institutions (DLIs) whose students are currently ineligible for Post-Graduate Work Permits should also be ineligible for study permits. The government should also revoke designation based on the measured immigration and labour market outcomes of an institution’s graduates. Those outcomes should be regularly published by the immigration department to help prospective migrants make informed decisions and combat false dreams pushed by education recruiters.  

    On temporary workers, extended measures allowing, for example, 30 percent of certain workforces to be low-wage temporary foreign workers, need reconsideration. Stemming the growth in the Low-Wage Stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and restoring the pre-2020 hiring regulations recognizes recent evidence of adverse effects of this program on wages and local unemployment rates.

    Most important, the government needs to bring back predictability in its permanent resident admission system in the economic-class applicant pool. Though well intentioned, the one-off programs easing the pathway to permanent status are contributing to temporary resident explosion. The department needs to return to its Comprehensive Ranking System as it did before 2020. The transparency of its points system and a stable minimum eligibility score over time will mean that applicants can see what skills or training they need for entry, thereby advancing the objective of our skilled immigration program.

    If these policy levers are collectively applied, they can stem the unhealthy growth in Canada’s non-permanent population, restore fairness and transparency in the permanent admission stream, and secure the immigration system’s integrity and sustainability. In doing so, we can ensure that Canada continues to be a welcoming and prosperous country for all. *note this article was sent as a letter by the C.D. Howe Institute authors to  The Honourable Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

    Parisa Mahboubi is a senior policy analyst at the C.D. Howe Institute. Mikal Skuterud is a professor of economics at the University of Waterloo, director of the Canadian Labour Economics Forum and a fellow-in-residence of the C.D. Howe Institute.

    Investor-State Disputes Proliferating, Rules Remain Critical for Canada Business Investment

    May 9, 2023 – Investor-state disputes are proliferating around the globe as business investors seek redress for government actions they deem unfair or contrary to investment agreements, according to report from the C.D. Howe Institute. In “Investor-State Disputes: The Record and the Reforms Needed for the Road Ahead,” author and C.D. Howe Institute Senior Fellow Lawrence L. Herman reviews the record of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) procedures, the criticisms directed at them, and the reforms required.

    “Despite concerns and criticism, ISDS procedures in international investment agreements are an important development in global governance that should continue to be a part of our international fabric,” says Herman.

    Herman examines both Canadian and global cases involving ISDSs, which give private parties the right to bring binding arbitration against governments under International Investment Agreements (IIAs). These rights can be invoked when investors allege a lack of fair and equitable treatment, discrimination or expropriation without adequate compensation contrary to a country’s treaty obligations.

    “ISDS has become a significant feature for investments, particularly into developing countries in many parts of the world,” according to Herman.

    “However, because of the rights given to private parties, these agreements have become increasingly controversial – especially in an era of increasingly expanding governmental measures on climate change, sustainability, human rights and other issues impacting foreign investors and their investments in one way or another.”

    In response to these concerns, multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts are making continuing improvements to ISDS mechanisms when it comes to efficiency, transparency and aspects such as permanent appointments and a system of appeals.

    “While some countries have embarked on a program of terminating their bilateral investment agreements, these agreements will continue to remain as a part of the international fabric in many parts of the globe,” says Herman. “They are an important development in global governance and, even if not perfect, they not going to disappear in spite of concerns and criticisms.”

    Creating permanent rosters of tribunal members as well as adding an appellate review processes to existing IIAs would help improve ISDS procedures. Short of this, Herman says ongoing efforts could include: i) promoting model arbitration clauses to reduce legal uncertainty and enhance consistency and predictability of outcomes; ii) developing codes of conduct and best practices for adjudicators plus rules to ensure their independence; and iii) making sure appointments to tribunals are of highest quality. Governments should also publicly support the value of third-party arbitration as an objective and neutral process that leads to peaceful resolution of differences, he adds.

    Ultimately, investment protection treaties are about risk mitigation with host states bound by treaty to respect obligations of fair and equitable treatment and other rule-of-law standards and providing investors with a degree of assurance, says Herman. “While there are legitimate questions about the process and whether and to what degree investment treaties accomplish these objectives, these suggestions can assist in providing ways forward,” he concludes.

    There are some 2,500 international investment agreements (IIAs) in force around the world, whether as stand-alone treaties or incorporated into bilateral or regional free trade agreements (FTAs). They are a significant feature of the international business scene.

    A main feature of these agreements is to allow foreign investors to invoke binding arbitration where it is alleged that the host governments have breached fair and equitable treatment and other treaty obligations towards the investors. This is known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement or “ISDS”.

    The process gives foreign investors comfort that if things go wrong in host countries, they have recourse to neutral, third-party dispute resolution. It thus provides important elements of risk reduction for foreign investors and their investments, notably aiding the flow of capital from industrialized countries to the developing world.

    There has been dramatic escalation of investor arbitration claims over the last two decades. This makes it timely and useful to review the situation, looking at the value of ISDS as well as the criticisms that have emerged over the years. The conclusion is that IIAs and the arbitration process are valuable parts of the corpus of international order and will remain an integral part of the international business scene for the foreseeable future. The issue facing governments, therefore, is how to respond to criticisms by improving, as opposed to abandoning, the ISDS process. This paper suggests some pragmatic ways forward.

    A Canadian company, First Quantum Minerals, and the government of Panama are reported to have settled a long-standing tax dispute allowing the company to resume operations at the Cobre Panama mine in that country. Earlier reports were that if the dispute was not resolved by negotiation, the company would invoke arbitration rights under the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement.

    Had the dispute proceeded, it would have been another example of hundreds of arbitrations that have proliferated around the globe, initiated under various international investment agreements (IIAs) that give private parties the right to bring binding arbitration against governments under Investor-State Dispute Settlement ( ISDS) procedures. Those rights can be invoked, for example, where investors allege lack of fair and equitable treatment, discrimination or expropriation without adequate compensation contrary to that country’s treaty obligations.

    In addition to investment treaties, numerous free trade agreements incorporate separate investment dispute settlement provisions, including the former North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); the Canada-EU trade agreement (CETA); the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) Agreement; and bilateral free trade agreements, such as those between Canada and countries like Chile and South Korea, among others.

    As a consequence, ISDS has become a significant feature of the ground rules for investments in many parts of the world, particularly those made into developing countries. Because of the rights given to private parties, these agreements have become increasingly controversial, especially in an era of expanding governmental measures on climate change, sustainability, human rights and more that impact foreign investors and their investments.

    In light of these developments, it is useful to briefly update the ISDS record with regard to Canada, look at what lessons might emerge, both in the global and the Canadian context, and suggest some elements to monitor as we go forward.

    Criticisms Of ISDS Agreements

    As investor arbitrations have proliferated, so have the criticisms, making ISDS one of the more controversial aspects of global governance. Here are some of the main ones:

    • IIAs have given private companies broad rights to challenge host-country actions that can fall within legitimate fields of public regulation, especially now in an era of decarbonization and other national crises like COVID 19.
    • The process involves one-way litigation, with no corresponding right of host countries to bring arbitration cases against investors for disregarding laws, practices and standards of business conduct.
    • The growth of third-party financings of investor claims has stimulated, or at least encouraged, the initiation of ISDS cases.
    • Investment agreements bypass the customary international law norm that requires claimants to first exhaust local remedies before bringing an international claim against a host country.
    • The ISDS structure is defective because its ad hoc tribunals – put together to hear a particular case – make long-term, binding decisions affecting laws or policies enacted for the public interest.
    • Arbitrators’ decisions are final and binding with no avenue of appeal, whether on errors of fact or of law.
    • Because of its ad hoc nature, the system lacks institutional continuity. Public confidence in the system suffers.
    • Arbitrators are appointed from a small — if not closed – pool of international lawyers who are free to act for private interests as counsel in other cases, leading to appearances of conflict and adding to diminished public confidence in the process.7

    There are answers to these critiques but the over-arching response, as alluded to above, is that resolving investor-state disputes based on legal norms within an accepted procedural framework remains a significant achievement in the progressive development of international law. As observed in one analysis,

    “During the last decade a number of the shortcomings have indeed been addressed and remedied. It is reasonable to assume that this has been done – at least partially – based on the realisation that investment treaty arbitration is the most efficient and reliable dispute settlement mechanism for disputes between foreign investors and host States. There is simply no better, realistic alternative.”8

    As already mentioned, ISDS in its various manifestations provides an important element of stability and risk insurance when investing in jurisdictions where legal rules may not be mature or respected, aiding the flow of capital to developing countries and thus presumably helping to meet the international community’s aid and development goals. The system may not be perfect, but efforts are afoot to improve it at many levels.

    For the Silo, Lawrence Herman/C.D. Howe Institute.

    The author thanks Daniel Schwanen, Charles-Emmanuel Côté, Rick Ekstein, Ari Van Assche, Gus Van Harten and anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft. The author retains responsibility for any errors and the views expressed.

    How Do Canada Provinces Grade In Taxpayer Fiscal Transparency?

    September 15, 2022 – Taxpayers and citizens need greater fiscal transparency from Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments, says the latest report from the C.D. Howe Institute.

    In “The Right to Know: Grading the Fiscal Transparency of Canada’s Senior Governments, 2022,” William B.P. Robson and Nicholas Dahir graded these governments’ budgets, estimates and financial statements on how well they let legislators and voters understand their fiscal plans and hold them to account for fulfilling them. The grades range from A to D. While some of the governments present helpful and timely budgets and financial statements, others fall badly short.

    The authors underline that budgets, estimates and financial statements must let interested but non-expert users find and understand and act on key information.

    “Taxpayers’ and citizens’ ability to monitor, influence and react to how legislators and officials manage public funds is fundamental to representative government,” say Robson and Dahir. “We need to check that legislators and government officials are acting in the interest of the people they represent, and we need to respond if we conclude that they are acting negligently or in their own interest. Financial reports are key tools for monitoring governments’ performance of their fiduciary duties.”

    image: Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau website. Link to Transparency PDF: https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/backgrounders/2015/11/27/open-and-accountable-government

    While much of the financial information presented to legislators and the public by Canada’s governments has improved over time, the assigned grades reveal significant shortfalls. This year’s report card covers year-end financial statements for fiscal year 2020/21 and budgets and estimates for 2021/22. The results were as follows:

    • Manitoba, British Colombia and the Northwest Territories trailed the the class with grades of D;
    • The federal government got a D+ – which was actually an improvement from an F last year, when it failed to produce a budget;
    • Newfoundland and Labrador also got a D+;
    • Nova Scotia scored a C and Prince Edward Island scored a C+;
    • Quebec scored a B- and Ontario scored a B;
    • Nunavut, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick each scored B+;
    • Alberta and Yukon topped the class with grades of A and A- respectively.

    These governments tax, spend and borrow hundreds of billions of dollars, and the fiscal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will make their financial position all the more important in the future. The authors conclude: “This annual report card hopes to encourage further progress and limit backsliding. Canadians can get more transparent financial reporting and better fiscal accountability from their governments, if they demand it.” For the Silo, Lauren Malyk.

    For more than 60 years, the C.D. Howe Institute has researched and published on policy challenges and potential solutions aimed at improving the performance of Canada’s economy and raising Canadians’ living standards.

    Read the Full Report

    Featured image via GIFT- The Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency

    Threat to Prosperity: Canada Should Mind Business Investment Gap

    August, 2022 – Business investment in Canada is so weak that capital per member of the labour force is falling, and the implications for incomes and competitiveness are ominous. Governments, particularly the federal government, need to get serious about growth to get workers more of the tools they require to compete and thrive, according to a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute.

    In “Decapitalization: Weak Business Investment Threatens Canadian Prosperity”, authors William B.P. Robson and Mawakina Bafale write that since 2015 Canada’s stock of capital per available worker has been declining and its rate of gross investment per worker has been well below that in the United States and other OECD countries.

    Capital= Business “bread and butter”

    They examine why Canada might be lagging as well as what action to take.

    “Business investment and productivity are closely related: productivity growth inspires investment by creating opportunities, and investment drives productivity growth by equipping workers with more and better tools,” says Robson. “Investment per available worker lower in Canada than abroad tells us that businesses see less opportunity in Canada, and prefigures weaker growth in Canadian earnings and living standards than in other OECD countries.”

    New investment per available worker in Canada, adjusted for purchasing power, was only slightly above 50 cents for every dollar of investment per available United States worker in 2021 – lower than at any point since the beginning of the 1990s. In addition, in 2022, OECD projections show that Canadian workers will likely enjoy only 73 cents of new capital for every dollar enjoyed by their counterparts in the OECD excluding the US, according to Robson and Bafale.

    The authors’ calculations from OECD projections for 2022 show $20,400 of new capital per available worker this year for OECD countries excluding the United States, compared to $14,800 for Canada.

    In other words, new capital per available worker in Canada will be more than one-quarter less than in those countries this year.

    Declines in the stock of machinery and equipment (M&E) and intellectual property (IPP) per member of the workforce are particularly worrisome, the authors explain, because those types of capital may be particularly important for economy-wide productivity. “Whatever special messages the recent M&E and IPP numbers may convey, the message from stocks of business capital overall is clear: the average member of Canada’s labour force began 2022 with less capital to work with than she or he had in 2014,” says Bafale.

    Robson and Bafale identify a few probable causes for Canada’s dismal investment performance. These include: weak business in the natural resource industries; restricted access to finance for small and mid-size firms; a loss in Canada’s competitive edge in business taxation, notably against the United States; an uncongenial environment for IP investment; regulatory uncertainly; unpredictable fiscal policy; and governments’ in-house spending and transfers to households that are steering resources into consumption and housing rather than non-residential investment.

    Is business investment capital trajectory predetermined?

    “The prospect that Canadians will find themselves increasingly relegated to lower value-added activities relative to workers in the United States and elsewhere, who are raising their productivity and earnings faster, should spur Canadian policymakers to action,” conclude Robson and Bafale. “The first step is to recognize that recent trends are a symptom of threats to Canada’s prosperity and competitiveness – that low business investment is a problem that governments can and should address.”

    Supplemental- Are you a small Canadian business frustrated with the difficulties involved in accessing capital? For example, our experience has shown that the multitude of Business Development Corporations operate with autonomy but without accountability, poor vision and nepotism. Essentially, gleaning business plans and strategies before revealing ‘jump through these application hoops” which include personal finance and personal life details. It is sobering to discover that they also receive a hefty commission % for every applicant they ‘certify as successful’. Do you agree or have you had a more positive experience? We want to hear from you in the comments below.

    Reboot Canadian Content Policy For Digital Age Says C.D. Howe Institute

    Canada should ditch Canadian content tools that are ill-suited for the digital age, says a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute.

    Image result for author Daniel Schwanen
    Daniel Schwanen

    In “Choosing Canada: Canadian Cultural Policy in the Twenty-first Century” author Daniel Schwanen sets out a plan to bring Canadian content policy into step with developments such as the emergence of digital competitors for Canadian viewers, including Netflix, Spotify and YouTube.

    Unfair Competition

    These digital competitors, notes Schwanen, are unconstrained by Canadian content requirements facing traditional TV or radio distributors. The consequence is a “slow bleed” in audiences for licensed TV broadcasters and radio stations while audiences for non-regulated digital channels (many based outside Canada), are rising sharply.

    Trends

    These trends negatively impact the revenues of traditional conduits for culture and information as advertising revenues migrate to digital channels. Compounding burden on traditional broadcasters, regulators maintain out-dated quotas of Canadian content in prime time and requirements to help fund Canadian TV and film production, whereas their emerging competitors on digital platforms are not subject to these rules. Furthermore, foreign online services such as Netflix are not required to charge their Canadian customers the Goods and Services Tax, unlike their Canadian competitors.

    Image result for disney+

    “As Canadians embrace new technologies and platforms to access their entertainment and information, the ability of quotas to affect Canadians’ viewing or listening habits is rapidly diminishing,” said Schwanen. Indeed, 2013 marked the first year in which the number of Canadian households subscribing to internet services exceeded the number of traditional television subscribers. Although 75 percent of Canadian households still subscribed to cable or satellite television distribution services in 2016 – down markedly from 83 percent only four years before – 87 percent of Canadian households subscribed to internet services. In the economy more generally, the culture, entertainment and information services offered online through digital technologies have boomed relative to other economic activities, and in particular relative to traditional cultural and information businesses.

    What Is True Demand?

    The report proposes an approach focused on more deliberately linking offerings of Canadian content with the potential demand for them. The report’s recommendations for regulators include:

    • Focusing the funding framework for public cultural agencies and cultural subsidies, including that of the CBC, on the production, dissemination, and exhibition of original artistic or literary works for which a commercial market is not yet established or for which there is a clear public rationale (e.g., educational, informational, or community benefits).
    • Establishing an arms-length “Canadian Connections Fund” that would replace some existing subsidies with support for initiatives that promote non-commercial Canadian content with Canadian audiences.
    • Working with Canadian broadcasters and distributors to facilitate the “discoverability” of Canadian content on digital platforms (through, e.g., search engine optimization, targeted online advertising, mobile applications, and the translation of Canadian works for both foreign and domestic audiences).
    • Eliminating mandated funding of Canadian content and Canadian content quotas for broadcasters while ensuring a level playing field for federal taxation applicable to digital media services purchased by Canadians
    • Reducing foreign investment restrictions applying to cultural industries, with the aim of attracting investment in Canada.

    Read the Full Report