The degree to which Canadians can make personal and economic choices has increased since hitting a two-decade low in 2020 amid COVID-19 restrictions, but remains below pre-pandemic levels, a new study suggests.
The findings are part of a global trend observed since the pandemic, with nearly 90 percent of people in 165 countries losing freedom between 2019 and 2022, according to the 2024 edition of the
Human Freedom Index released by the Fraser Institute and U.S.-based Cato Institute on Dec. 17.
While human freedom increased in most countries in 2022, it remains “well below its pre-pandemic level,” the report said.
“During the COVID pandemic, governments enacted extremely restrictive measures as a means to fight the spread of the disease and these measures clearly reduced most peoples’ freedom, which is a critical ingredient for a better life,” said Matthew D. Mitchell, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-author of the report, in a
press release.
The authors define human freedom as “the absence of coercive constraint.” To measure it, they used more than 80 indicators in areas such as religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, property rights, and the size of government.
The report ranked Canada as the 11th freest country based on data from 2022, an improvement from 13th place the
previous year. However, Canada is no longer among the
top 10 freest countries, a position it held for a decade before the pandemic.
Canada’s highest freedom scores were in regard to relationships, including divorce, same-sex relationships, and inheritance rights, earning 10 points out of 10. Canada also scored almost full points on freedom of speech and the press, as well as freedom of movement.
Religious freedom in Canada also scored well in 2022, with a score of 9.5. Freedoms related to safety and security also scored well, with relatively low rates of disappearances, conflicts, and terrorism.
Globally, the pandemic and its aftermath saw significant declines in freedoms, particularly in movement, expression, association, assembly, and access to sound money, according to the report.
Size of Government
Canada’s lowest score, 6.4 points, came from its government size, which is often
measured in terms of government spending as a share of the economy and public sector employment as a percentage of total employment. Canada’s low score was mainly due to levels of government consumption and top marginal tax rates.
The size of government in Canada has grown steadily in recent years, with government spending and public-sector employment rates increasing in most provinces by 2022, according to a Fraser Institute
report released earlier this year. The authors said that, given the extent of government spending and intervention during the pandemic, the size of government has become a telling social and economic indicator.
They
noted that when the size of government surpasses optimal ranges, “it imposes negative effects on the economy, such as crowding out private sector investment, but without providing proportionate benefits such as greater social progress.”
Other low scores on Canada’s freedom index this year concerned business regulation, transfers and subsidies, tariffs, and government ownership of assets.
Human Freedom Around the World
Switzerland topped the rankings for human freedom in the report, followed by New Zealand, Denmark, Luxembourg, and Ireland. Syria had the least human freedom, followed by Yemen, Iran, Myanmar, and Sudan.Japan ranked 12th and Germany 14th, while the United States and the United Kingdom tied for 17th. Some large countries such as India, Russia, and China had low rankings, placing 110th, 139th, and 150th, respectively.
The authors
found that less than 15 percent of the world’s population lives in the freest 25 percent of countries, while 43 percent of the population lives in the bottom 25 percent. They noted that people in freer jurisdictions tend to have higher incomes, greater life satisfaction, and less extreme poverty than people in the least free countries.
Government “can either prevent individual choice by limiting what people are allowed to do with their persons and property, or it can safeguard individual choice by protecting people, their property, and their decisions,” the authors
wrote.
