Ottawa promised tax reform. Experts say three changes matter most.
The Income Tax Act has grown from 10 pages in 1917 to over 3,000 pages today. That expansion is not just legislative clutter. Every added page represents a choice to solve a social problem through the tax system rather than through direct policy, and the cumulative effect has been a compliance burden that falls hardest on those least equipped to handle it.
When federal officials signal tax reform as a priority, what they are acknowledging is that the current system is not doing what a tax system is supposed to do: collect revenue efficiently, distribute the burden fairly, and allow people and businesses to understand their obligations without hiring specialists. Canada's code has wandered far from that baseline. Three structural changes would move it back.
Collapsing boutique credits into lower rates
The federal tax system now includes hundreds of targeted credits, for digital news subscriptions, multi-generational home renovations, volunteer firefighters, and dozens of other narrow categories. Each was introduced with a specific policy goal. Each adds a layer of complexity that discourages take-up and distorts behavior.
An estimated $1.7 to $1.9 billion in federal benefits goes unclaimed each year, largely because people are unable to file taxes. Small business owners spend thousands each year on accountants to navigate deductions that larger firms handle with in-house tax departments. The regressive effect is clear: sophistication determines who captures the benefit.
A reform that collapsed these boutique credits into a lower baseline tax rate would reduce compliance costs and eliminate the built-in advantage for those who can afford expert advice. The rate cut would not need to be dramatic. Consolidating even half of the existing credits would allow for a reduction of two to three percentage points across the middle brackets without changing net revenue. The tradeoff is political. Each credit has a constituency that will argue loudly for its retention.
Shifting toward consumption taxes
Canada relies more heavily on personal income tax than most OECD countries. Income taxes are progressive, which is why they are politically preferred, but they are also economically inefficient. They tax the decision to work and invest, which are behaviors a country trying to close a productivity gap should not be discouraging.
A revenue-neutral shift toward consumption taxes, specifically, an increase in the GST/HST with offsetting cuts to income tax rates, would reduce the drag on productivity while maintaining progressivity through credits for low-income households. British Columbia's carbon tax rebate structure provides a working model: higher consumption taxes paired with quarterly credits that fully offset the burden for the bottom two income quintiles.
The politics are toxic. Voters see consumption tax increases as regressive even when the net effect is progressive, and no party wants to defend a GST hike in an election year. But the efficiency gains are real, with economic research consistently finding that consumption taxes impose lower drag on productivity than income taxes while progressivity can be maintained through targeted credits for low-income households.
Updating rules for a digital economy
The concept of a "permanent establishment" was written for a world where businesses needed physical presence to operate in a jurisdiction. Remote work, cloud infrastructure, and cross-border e-commerce have made that concept unworkable. A consultant in Halifax working for a Toronto client through a platform based in Delaware is taxed under rules that assume none of those arrangements exist.
Canada's alignment with the OECD Pillar Two framework, a 15% global minimum tax for multinationals, closes one gap. But the harder problem is defining taxable presence for individuals and small businesses operating across borders. The Alternative Minimum Tax redesign in 2024 was an attempt at this, but it added complexity rather than resolving the underlying issue.
A modern framework would treat income where it is earned, not where paperwork says the entity resides. That requires federal-provincial coordination and international treaties, which is why it has not happened. The cost of inaction is a system that undertaxes those who can structure around it and overtaxes those who cannot.
The last comprehensive review of Canada's tax system concluded in 1966. Sixty years is a long time to run on patches.
The Income Tax Act has grown from 10 pages in 1917 to over 3,000 pages today. That expansion is not just legislative clutter. Every added page represents a choice to solve a social problem through the tax system rather than through direct policy, and the cumulative effect has been a compliance burden that falls hardest on those least equipped to handle it.
When federal officials signal tax reform as a priority, what they are acknowledging is that the current system is not doing what a tax system is supposed to do: collect revenue efficiently, distribute the burden fairly, and allow people and businesses to understand their obligations without hiring specialists. Canada's code has wandered far from that baseline. Three structural changes would move it back.
Collapsing boutique credits into lower rates
The federal tax system now includes hundreds of targeted credits, for digital news subscriptions, multi-generational home renovations, volunteer firefighters, and dozens of other narrow categories. Each was introduced with a specific policy goal. Each adds a layer of complexity that discourages take-up and distorts behavior.
An estimated $1.7 to $1.9 billion in federal benefits goes unclaimed each year, largely because people are unable to file taxes. Small business owners spend thousands each year on accountants to navigate deductions that larger firms handle with in-house tax departments. The regressive effect is clear: sophistication determines who captures the benefit.
A reform that collapsed these boutique credits into a lower baseline tax rate would reduce compliance costs and eliminate the built-in advantage for those who can afford expert advice. The rate cut would not need to be dramatic. Consolidating even half of the existing credits would allow for a reduction of two to three percentage points across the middle brackets without changing net revenue. The tradeoff is political. Each credit has a constituency that will argue loudly for its retention.
Shifting toward consumption taxes
Canada relies more heavily on personal income tax than most OECD countries. Income taxes are progressive, which is why they are politically preferred, but they are also economically inefficient. They tax the decision to work and invest, which are behaviors a country trying to close a productivity gap should not be discouraging.
A revenue-neutral shift toward consumption taxes, specifically, an increase in the GST/HST with offsetting cuts to income tax rates, would reduce the drag on productivity while maintaining progressivity through credits for low-income households. British Columbia's carbon tax rebate structure provides a working model: higher consumption taxes paired with quarterly credits that fully offset the burden for the bottom two income quintiles.
The politics are toxic. Voters see consumption tax increases as regressive even when the net effect is progressive, and no party wants to defend a GST hike in an election year. But the efficiency gains are real, with economic research consistently finding that consumption taxes impose lower drag on productivity than income taxes while progressivity can be maintained through targeted credits for low-income households.
Updating rules for a digital economy
The concept of a "permanent establishment" was written for a world where businesses needed physical presence to operate in a jurisdiction. Remote work, cloud infrastructure, and cross-border e-commerce have made that concept unworkable. A consultant in Halifax working for a Toronto client through a platform based in Delaware is taxed under rules that assume none of those arrangements exist.
Canada's alignment with the OECD Pillar Two framework, a 15% global minimum tax for multinationals, closes one gap. But the harder problem is defining taxable presence for individuals and small businesses operating across borders. The Alternative Minimum Tax redesign in 2024 was an attempt at this, but it added complexity rather than resolving the underlying issue.
A modern framework would treat income where it is earned, not where paperwork says the entity resides. That requires federal-provincial coordination and international treaties, which is why it has not happened. The cost of inaction is a system that undertaxes those who can structure around it and overtaxes those who cannot.
The last comprehensive review of Canada's tax system concluded in 1966. Sixty years is a long time to run on patches.
Sources
Read Next
Canadian Homeowners Are Making Higher Payments. Most Still Don't Know What's Coming.
WestJet's Wheelchair Weight Cap Was Never About Safety
Why a 1,481-Unit Ajax Project Collapsed Before Completion
Why 51% of Your Income Still Buys You a Housing Crisis