Canadian Manufacturing Malaise: Three Hypotheses

The danger in politicians promoting the idea that “Dutch Disease” is responsible for the decline of the Ontario manufacturing sector is that the suggestion implies that Canada’s manufacturing sector will bounce back if only we could slow down oil sands development, or if the Canadian dollar were to devalue. In reality, evidence suggests that the decline in Ontario manufacturing is the result of long-term structural changes in the economy, independent of the rise of the country’s natural-resource sector and the rising dollar. And the sooner policymakers realize that, and stop blaming the decline in manufacturing on Dutch Disease (which holds that a booming natural-resource sector that drives up our dollar makes our manufacturing exports less competitive) the sooner they can get to work on helping manufacturing-dependent regions transition to the evolving economy. A closer analysis of Canada’s manufacturing sector shows that jobs in that sector have been disappearing across the country since the end of the Second World War, with the sector’s share of employment falling dramatically well before rapid development began to take hold in the oil sands, and back when Canada’s dollar was still worth far less than the American dollar. It is a trend that has been occurring among most of our OECD peers, including the United States, which may be due to the widespread reallocation of production to lower cost countries. But it is also true that Canada’s manufacturing productivity performance in particular has been declining for a generation, with especially poor performance in the last decade, when labour productivity in Canada grew at just a quarter of the U.S. rate. Meanwhile, capital investment that may have improved the competitiveness of Canadian manufacturing has been anemic.  Yet there is no particular reason to lament the scaling-down of manufacturing jobs in Ontario. The province remains just as economically important, as a share of national GDP, as it was 30 years ago, and its unemployment rate has remained roughly in line with the Canadian average. Often the manufacturing jobs that disappear soonest are low-skill, low-paying jobs. Indeed, those workers that have remained in the sector have done very well, with the growth in weekly earnings in the Ontario manufacturing sector outpacing the national average. It would be a grave mistake for Ontario’s policy-makers to argue in favour of hampering Canada’s oil sands development in hopes that it might devalue the dollar and revive their province’s shrinking manufacturing base. It would harm the national economy and yet, judging by the evidence, may do nothing to add jobs at Ontario’s factories. Instead, Ontario’s policymakers should accept that those jobs might never return, and instead, focus their energies on finding ways to encourage growth in high-skill, high-paying jobs in other sectors that offer more promise

Canada’s Foreign Direct Investment Challenge: Reducing Barriers and Ensuring a Level Playing Field in the Face of Sovereign Wealth Funds and State-Owned Enterprises

Recent takeovers – and attempted takeovers – of strategic resource companies have renewed concerns that some of Canada’s prized corporate players are falling into foreign hands. However, data shows that Canada has not been a significant attractor of multinational investment, lagging behind a number of developed and developing nations. Indeed, since the mid-1990s, Canada has been a net exporter of capital in world markets, as foreign direct investment by Canadian companies far outpaced the inflow of foreign capital. Rather than being hollowed out, we are hollowing out other countries. As a general policy, Canada should reduce barriers to foreign direct investment and welcome our growing role in international markets. As many studies have shown, foreign direct investment brings significant net benefits to the Canadian economy, including knowledge transfers, new management, better wages and productivity. Only in limited circumstances, such as in the case of protecting Canada’s national security, should Canada block foreign takeovers of Canadian companies. In the interest of neutrality and minimizing economic distortions, takeovers of Canadian companies by foreign sovereign wealth funds or state-owned enterprises should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. When state-owned enterprises have similar commercial objectives and operate on a level-playing field without financial support by state owners, they could also provide net benefits to the Canadian economy. One important area that requires further consideration is with respect to the tax-exempt status of sovereign wealth funds and state-owned companies. Canadian tax treaties should be reviewed to ensure that Canadian withholding taxes maintain an even playing field among private and state-owned businesses operating in Canada

No More Second-Class Taxpayers: How Income Splitting Can Bring Fairness to Canada’s Single Income Families

The Canadian personal income tax system does not pay much attention to whether the amount of money an individual brings home is supplemented by the income of a spouse or not. That means that families where one spouse earns more than the other get taxed at a higher rate than families where two working partners earn the same total income split evenly between two paycheques. In fact, a family with just a single earner making $70,000 a year pays 30 per cent more in taxes every year than a family with two partners making$35,000 a year. A single-earner family taking in $120,000 a year pays the same income tax as a dualearning couple making$141,000 between them. The federal Conservative government has at least suggested it wants to finally level that playing field — nearly six decades after a royal commission recommended that the income tax system be changed to recognize total family household income, rather than focusing on each individual’s income. Given that Canada’s income tax system aims to treat people in similar circumstances as equally as possible, it is certainly time to let couples split their income so they do not face a penalty in higher tax rates than those faced by couples bringing home the same amount of total pay. While couples with just a single earner enjoy some advantages, a dual-earning couple does not — namely the extra time the stay-at-home spouse is able to use to raise children and produce other unpaid, home-based benefits — that can be accounted for using other means. Specifically, cutting out the transferability of the unused portion of the basic personal tax exemption for couples splitting income — requiring couples splitting their income to each earn money in order to use this credit — is one way to account for the difference in unpaid benefits that single-income families do typically enjoy more than dual-income couples. That is one mechanism; there may still be others the government might consider. But the bottom line is that there are ways to account for certain non-labour-market-related differences between single-earner families and dual-earner families. No doubt many of these proposals would be an improvement over the current, where two different families subsisting on the same pay are taxed very differently, with one type of family penalized simply because of how their income is earned

No More Second-Class Taxpayers: How Income Splitting Can Bring Fairness to Canada’s Single Income Families

The Canadian personal income tax system does not pay much attention to whether the amount of money an individual brings home is supplemented by the income of a spouse or not. That means that families where one spouse earns more than the other get taxed at a higher rate than families where two working partners earn the same total income split evenly between two paycheques. In fact, a family with just a single earner making $70,000 a year pays 30 per cent more in taxes every year than a family with two partners making$35,000 a year. A single-earner family taking in $120,000 a year pays the same income tax as a dualearning couple making$141,000 between them. The federal Conservative government has at least suggested it wants to finally level that playing field — nearly six decades after a royal commission recommended that the income tax system be changed to recognize total family household income, rather than focusing on each individual’s income. Given that Canada’s income tax system aims to treat people in similar circumstances as equally as possible, it is certainly time to let couples split their income so they do not face a penalty in higher tax rates than those faced by couples bringing home the same amount of total pay. While couples with just a single earner enjoy some advantages, a dual-earning couple does not — namely the extra time the stay-at-home spouse is able to use to raise children and produce other unpaid, home-based benefits — that can be accounted for using other means. Specifically, cutting out the transferability of the unused portion of the basic personal tax exemption for couples splitting income — requiring couples splitting their income to each earn money in order to use this credit — is one way to account for the difference in unpaid benefits that single-income families do typically enjoy more than dual-income couples. That is one mechanism; there may still be others the government might consider. But the bottom line is that there are ways to account for certain non-labour-market-related differences between single-earner families and dual-earner families. No doubt many of these proposals would be an improvement over the current, where two different families subsisting on the same pay are taxed very differently, with one type of family penalized simply because of how their income is earned