From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Rather than directly spend money on critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports or even electricity grids—things that traditionally are considered capital investments—the government plans to spend money on subsidies and tax breaks to corporations (i.e. corporate welfare) under the umbrella of “capital investment”

The Carney government’s long-awaited first budget is almost here—expected Nov. 4—but Canadians may not recognize what they get. Early on, the new government promised a new approach to spending. Thanks to a decade of record-breaking spending under Justin Trudeau, the federal deficit sits at a projected $48.3 billion while total debt has eclipsed $2.1 trillion. But the Carney government’s plan announced this week appears to rely on accounting maneuvers rather than any substantive spending reductions.

According to the latest details released by the government, the Carney government will separate spending into two categories: “operating spending” and “capital investment.” Within this framework, the government plans to balance the “operating budget” within three years.

But of course, if the government eventually balances the operating budget, that doesn’t mean it will stop borrowing money to pay for“capital investment”—a new category of spending the government can define and expand whenever it deems necessary.

Currently, according to the government, capital investment will include any spending or tax expenditures (e.g. tax credits and deductions) that “contribute to capital formation”—the creation of assets (such as machinery or equipment) that improve the ability of workers to produce goods and services.

In other words, rather than directly spend money on critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports or even electricity grids—things that traditionally are considered capital investments—the government plans to spend money on subsidies and tax breaks to corporations (i.e. corporate welfare) under the umbrella of “capital investment,” so long as this spending will somehow “encourage” capital formation. But clearly, corporate welfare doesn’t belong in the same category as the expansion of a critical port, for example, and the government shouldn’t pretend that it does.

Put simply, because the term “capital investment” is so broad and malleable, the government can seemingly use it whenever it wants. For example, to meet NATO’s spending target of 2 per cent of GDP, a key point of contention in Carney’s negotiations with President Trump, the Carney government could (inaccurately) categorize some defence spending as capital spending. And in fact, the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer—Ottawa’s fiscal watchdog—views the Carney government’s definition as “overly expansive” and suggests the inclusion of corporate tax breaks and subsidies will “overstate” the government’s actual contribution to the creation of capital.

This approach by the Carney government will not help Canadians understand the true state of federal finances. While Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne recently said that the “deficit and the debt will be recorded in the same manner as in previous budgets,” on budget day and beyond the government will undoubtedly focus on the operating budget when communicating to Canadians. So, the government will only tell part of the story.

After years of fiscal mismanagement with large increases in spending and debt under the Trudeau government, Canadians need a government willing to make the tough decisions necessary to get federal finances back in shape. But the Carney government appears poised to shirk accountability and use tricks to cloud the true state of federal finances.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

From the Resource Works team.

On Truth and Reconciliation Day, Canadians are asked to honour residential school survivors and to support the families and communities who must live with that history.

It also calls for action, not mere commemoration. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called for structural change in Canada, and that means clearing the way for Indigenous leadership across this country.

Economic reconciliation is a practical journey that shifts decision-making and ownership towards First Nations and Indigenous people more generally.

Throughout B.C., First Nations are already practicing what that looks like. The Osoyoos Indian Band has built a diverse economy in tourism, wine, and recreation that has sustained steady jobs and revenue.

“I think all Native leadership need to get the economic development focus going on and make the economy the number one issue. It’s the economy that looks after everything,” Chief Clarence Louie has said. That sense of mission, along with assets like Nk’Mip Cellars and Spirit Ridge, has helped to turn Osoyoos into a B.C. success story.

On the coast, the Haisla Nation is leading in innovation in the LNG sector. In 2024, the Cedar LNG facility was granted a positive final investment decision, along with the Haisla’s majority ownership of the $4 billion project.

“Today is about changing the course of history for my Nation and Indigenous peoples,” said Haisla Chief Councillor Crystal Smith during the long approval process. By seeing the project through, Haisla ownership has created the means to fund language, health care, and opportunity for generations that had found all of that out of reach.

In the Lower Mainland, the Squamish Nation’s Sen̓áḵw development is one of the biggest projects in the Vancouver real estate market, and will become an asset for decades to come.

“This project is not just about buildings, it’s about bringing the Squamish People back to the land, making our presence felt once again in the heart of our ancestral territory, and creating long term wealth for the Squamish Nation,” said Council Chairperson Khelsilem.

The Squamish recently restructured the partnership so Squamish holds half of phases one and two and all of phases three and four, while welcoming OPTrust to a 50 percent stake in the early phases. Indigenous leadership is not just transforming the rural resource economy, but the urban one as well.

Chief Ian Campbell of the Squamish Nation, former chair of the Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase event in Vancouver, has said that economic reconciliation is essential to the future of Canada.

“To move forward and reframe that complex dynamic, and put the lens on economic reconciliation, to me, is the path forward to create mutual benefits and values that benefit all Canadians, which includes Indigenous people,” said Campbell.

For governments and industry, there is a duty to align policy, permitting, and capital flows with Indigenous-led priorities. Beyond benefits agreements, reconciliation requires listening both early and attentively, and ensuring cooperation every step of the way.

The Bank of Canada itself has noted that “tremendous untapped potential exists”, but only when private firms and public agencies commit to economic reconciliation.

Listening also means resisting the temptation to cast Indigenous peoples as either monolithic supporters or opponents of development. Figures like Ellis Ross, former Chief Councillor of the Haisla, and his successor Crystal Smith have challenged these narratives, pointing instead to Haisla and neighbouring Nations’ experience with real jobs, careers, and community services tied to LNG and related infrastructure.

The Haisla message is straightforward: the path to revitalized language and culture runs through sustained opportunity and self-determination.

Truth and Reconciliation Day is a reminder that the past matters, and this is evident in the inequities of the present and in the possibilities now being realized by Nations that are reclaiming jurisdiction and building enterprises on their own terms.

Our task is to ensure public policy and corporate practice do not get in the way. On September 30, we remember, and then on October 1 and every day after, we have work to do.