New Prime Minister Carney’s Fiscal Math Doesn’t Add Up

For the first time in Canada’s history, the Prime Minister has never sought or won a democratic election in any parliament. Mark Carney’s victory to replace Justin Trudeau as the leader of the Liberal Party means he is now the Prime Minister. Carney’s resume and achievements make him one of the most accomplished prime ministers ever. Still, there are a number of basic questions about Carney’s fiscal and economic math that Canadians need to consider carefully as we enter an election.

Carney’s accomplishments should be recognized. He has a bachelor’s degree in economics from Harvard and both a masters and doctoral degrees in economics from Oxford University. He spent over a decade at Goldman Sachs, a leading US-based financial firm then left to take up senior positions at both the Bank of Canada and later the Department of Finance. He became the Governor of the Bank of Canada in 2007 and then the Governor of the Bank of England in 2012. After his tenure at the Bank of England, Carney took up a number of private sector posts including chairman at Brookfield Asset Management, a major Canadian company.

Despite these obvious accomplishments and a deep CV, Carney’s proposed fiscal policies pose a number of serious questions.

Carney self-characterizes as a pragmatist and someone who will bring the Liberal Party back to the political centre after having been pushed to the left by former prime minister Justin Trudeau. Even former prime minister Jean Chrétien, one of the country’s most electorally successful prime ministers called for the party to move back to the centre.

Specifically, Carney said he would “cap” the size of the federal government workforce and reduce federal spending through a review of program spending as was done in 1994-95. He also indicated that the operating budget would be balanced within three years. He criticized the current government for spending too much and not investing enough, and for missing spending targets and violating its own fiscal guardrails. The implication of all these policies is that the role of the federal government will be rolled back with reductions in spending and federal employment, and reducing regulations. In many ways, these policies mirror those of former prime minister Chrétien.

However, there are numerous statements by Carney that seem to contradict these policies, or at the very least, water them down significantly. Consider, for instance, that Carney has indicated there will be no cuts to transfers to provincial governments (19.8 per cent of budget spending), no reductions in the income-transfers to individuals and families (25.8 per cent), and the government doesn’t determine interest charges on its debt (another 9.7 per cent). So, Carney has already taken over half the federal budget off the table for reductions.

It’s not clear whether he would reduce what’s referred to as “Other Transfers” which includes support for EV programs and investment incentives. This represents 17.9 per cent of the current budget. And if you read any of Carney’s climate-related initiatives, it appears this category of spending will actually increase, not decrease. Moreover, Carney stated he won’t touch some transfers such as the national dental care and pharmacare programs.

The major remaining category of federal spending is “operating expenses”, which includes the costs of running more than 100 government departments, agencies and Crown corporations. It’s expected to reach $130.6 billion this year and represents 23.4 per cent of the federal budget. But again, Carney has only committed to “capping” the federal workforce despite significant growth since 2015 and then review programs. Unless he’s willing to actually reduce federal employment and/or challenge existing contracts with the civil service, it’s not clear how he can find meaningful savings in the short term.

Recall that the expected deficit this year is $42.2 billion and to balance the budget over the next three years, Carney needs to find roughly $30 billion in savings. (Some of the deficit reduction is expected to come from economic growth, which increases government revenues).

However, this ignores the pressure on the federal government to markedly and quickly increase defense spending. A recent analysis estimated that the federal government would have to increase defense spending in 2027-28 by $68.8 billion to meet its NATO commitment, which is what President Trump is demanding. This single measure of spending could materially derail the new prime minister’s commitment to a balanced budget within three years.

But Carney has complicated the nation’s finances by committing to separating operating spending from capital spending. The former are annual spending requirements like salaries and wages to federal employees, income transfers to people through programs like EI and Old Age Security, and transfers to the provinces for health and social programs. Carney has committed to balancing the revenues collected for these purposes against spending.

However, he wants to remove anything that is deemed an “investment” or “capital”. That means spending on infrastructure like roads and ports, defense spending on equipment, and energy projects.

While Carney has committed to only running a “small deficit” on such spending, the commitment is eerily similar to Trudeau’s commitment in 2015 to run “small deficits” for just “three years” and the budget will balance itself through economic growth. The total federal gross debt has increased from $1.1 trillion when Trudeau took office in 2015 to an estimated $2.3 trillion this year.

The clear risk is that a Carney government will simply reduce spending in the operating budget and move it to the capital budget, thus balancing the latter while still piling up government debt.

Clarity is required from the new prime minister with respect to: 1) What operating expenses does he plan to reduce (or perhaps more generally is open to reducing) over the next three years to reach a balanced operating budget? 2) What specific commitment is Carney making on defense spending over the next three years? 3) What current spending will the new prime minister move or potentially move from the budget to his new capital budget? And finally, 4) What measures will be taken if revenues don’t materialize as expected and/or spending increases more than planned to ensure a balanced operating budget in three years?

Until greater clarity and details are provided, it’s hard, even near impossible, to know the extent to which the new prime minister is pragmatically offering a plan for more sustainable government finances versus playing politics by promising everything to everyone.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #JakeFuss #MarkCarney feature JasonClemons MarkCarney'sMath

Up Next

Time to unplug Ottawa’s EV sales mandates

Don't Miss

Is Russia at War With Ukraine, or With the West?

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Tucker Carlson: US intelligence is shielding Epstein network, not President Trump

Freedom Convoy / 11 mins ago

Court Orders Bank Freezing Records in Freedom Convoy Case

Alberta / 5 hours ago

‘Far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism’: Complaint filed against Globe and Mail article challenging Alberta’s gender surgery law

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on July 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Fraser Institute

Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually

Published on July 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson and Steven Globerman

From 2000 to 2015, annual immigration averaged 617,800 immigrants, compared to a more than doubling to 1.4 million annually from 2016 to
2024 (excluding 2020), according to a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent non-partisan Canadian think-tank.

“Over the past decade, Canada’s immigration numbers have skyrocketed, most starkly since 2021,” said Jock Finlayson, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Canada’s Changing Immigration Patterns, 2000–2024.

The study finds from 2000 to 2015, immigration (including temporary foreign workers and international students) grew on average by 3.5 per cent per year. However, from 2016 to 2024 (excluding 2020) immigration grew annually at 21.3 per cent—more than six times the 2000-2015 pace.

The sharp rise in recent years reflects both planned increases in permanent immigrant inflows as well as unprecedented and largely unplanned growth in the numbers of temporary foreign workers, international students, and asylum seekers. For example, in 2024 alone, 485,600 permanent immigrants entered Canada, along with 518,200 international students and nearly one million (912,900) temporary foreign workers.

However, due to concerns about the impact of unprecedented in-migration on housing affordability, employment opportunities (or lack thereof), access to health care and other issues, late last year the federal government unveiled plans to substantially reduce immigration levels over the 2025-27 period, affecting permanent immigrants, international students, and other temporary visa holders.

The composition of immigration also changed dramatically during this period. From 2000 to 2015, the average share of total immigrants in the permanent category was 42.1 per cent while the non-permanent share (mainly international students and temporary workers) was 57.9 per cent. From 2016 to 2024 (excluding Covid 2020), permanent immigrants averaged 27.7 per cent of total in-migration versus 72.3 per cent for non-permanent.

“We’re in the midst of a housing crisis in Canada, and the unfortunate truth is we lack the necessary infrastructure to accommodate immigration at the 2022-24 rate,” said Steven Globerman, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and study co-author.

“While the reductions announced late last year have been confirmed by the new government, the levels of immigration over the next two year will still be well above historic benchmarks.”

This study is the first in a series of papers from the authors on immigration.

Canada’s Changing Immigration Patterns, 2000—2024

Immigration, after 2000 and especially after 2015, is characterized by substantial increases in the absolute number of immigrants admitted, as well the share admitted as temporary foreign workers and international students.
For example, from 2000 to 2015, the total number of immigrants increased at a simple average annual rate of 4% compared to 15% from 2016 to 2024. As well, permanent admissions as a share of total admissions declined by .83 percentage points per year from 2000 to 2015 and by 1.1 percentage points per year from 2016 to 2024.
These recent developments reflect changes in government policy. In particular, the International Mobility Program (IMP) of 2014 enabled Canadian employers to bring in greater numbers of temporary workers from abroad to fill lower-paying jobs.
The Advisory Council on Economic Growth appointed by the Trudeau government in early 2016 recommended substantial increases in permanent immigration, as well as in the number of international students who would become eligible for permanent status after acquiring Canadian educational credentials. The Trudeau government enthusiastically embraced the recommendation.
Recent immigrants to Canada seem better equipped to participate in the labour market than earlier cohorts. For example, over the period from 2011 to 2021, the percentage of established immigrants with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased, and the vast majority of admitted immigrants speak at least one of the official languages. Moreover, recent immigrants enjoy higher employment rates than did earlier cohorts.
Nevertheless, public concern about the impact of increased immigration—primarily on the affordability of housing—has led the federal government to reduce planned levels of future immigration substantially.