Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Federal government could save $10.7 billion by eliminating eight spending initiatives

Published

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

During its tenure, the Trudeau government rejected any semblance of spending restraint and increased spending (and borrowing) at every turn. However, due to the rising cost of deficits and debt, coupled with pressures to increase spending in neglected areas such as defence, the next federal government—whoever that may be—may finally be forced to find savings and reduce spending.

But where to look?

The government should immediately review all spending on the basis of efficiency, value for money, and the appropriate role of government—similar to the spending review initiated by the federal Chrétien government during the 1990s. Here are some line items ripe for the cutting board.

Spending Area Projected Spending in 2024/25
Regional Development Agencies $1.5 billion
Government Supports for Journalism $1.7 billion
Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles $0.6 billion
2 Billion Trees $0.3 billion
Canada Infrastructure Bank $3.5 billion
Strategic Innovation Fund $2.4 billion
Global Innovation Clusters $0.2 billion
Green Municipal Fund $0.5 billion
Total Potential Savings $10.7 billion

Regional Development Agencies: The federal government operates seven Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), which deliver financial assistance (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to businesses. Despite spending an estimated $1.5 billion in federal taxpayer money in 2024/25, the RDAs do not provide any widespread economic benefits to Canadians. Instead, they simply redistribute those dollars to private firms and pick winners and losers in the free market. When reporting on the results, the government offers vague platitudes such as “businesses are growing” and “communities are developing economically.”

Government Money for Journalism: In 2024/25 the federal government spent an estimated $1.7 billion to support Canadian journalism including the operating costs (e.g. wages) of newspapers and broadcast outlets such as the CBC. Despite these efforts, and the considerable price tag, hundreds of news organizations have closed since 2020 and layoffs have persisted—largely due to the disruptive effects of the Internet. Simply put, the traditional media sector is in decline, and the government’s costly attempts to reverse this trend have been ineffective.

Federal Support for Electric Vehicle Purchases: As part of its push to reduce emissions, the federal government will spend an estimated $587.6 million to subsidize electric vehicle (EV) purchases in 2024/25. This spending is inefficient and wasteful. EV incentives are expensive—costing a minimum of $177 per tonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, whereas the federal carbon tax in 2024 was much cheaper at $80 per tonne of GHG emissions.

The 2 Billion Trees (2BT) Program: Ottawa has earmarked $3.2 billion for the program from 2021 to 2031, with expenses in 2024-25 alone estimated at $340 million. While laudable in theory, the program has been poorly executed. In its first two years, the federal government spent roughly 15.0 per cent of the total budget to plant merely 2.3 per cent of the two billion trees. In fact, the 2BT program has used trees planted under a different program to artificially boost its numbers.

Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): Established in 2017, the CIB is a federal Crown corporation tasked with investing and attracting investment in Canadian infrastructure projects. Over its more than seven-year lifespan, the CIB has approved approximately $13.2 billion in investments across 76 projects (as of July 2024). In 2024/25, federal CIB funding will equal $3.5 billion. Though multiple problems plague the CIB, chief among them is its inefficiency in advancing projects. As of July 2024, only two CIB-funded projects had been completed. This lack of progress was a chief concern in a previous House of Commons committee report that made the sole recommendation to abolish the CIB.

Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF): With federal grants and contributions, the SIF funds projects based on their purported potential to deliver innovation and economic benefits for Canadians. While Canada certainly suffers from a lack of innovation, this spending (to the tune of $2.4 billion in 2024/25) simply shifts jobs and investment dollars away from other firms and industries—with no net benefit for the overall economy. Similarly, increased government spending on innovation may simply crowd out private-sector investment, leading to no net increase in innovation investment.

Global Innovation Clusters (GIC): The federal government launched the GIC program, like the SIF, to address the lack of innovation in Canada. The government expects to disperse $202.3 million through the GIC in 2024/25 alone, targeting the five “clusters” of business activity the government chose in 2018. But again, because the clusters represent specific industries and technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence, marine technologies, manufacturing), the federal government is incentivizing firms to spend time and resources modifying their businesses to secure grant rather than focusing on the development of new/improved goods and services.

Green Municipal Fund (GMF): The GMF spends federal tax dollars on municipal projects that purportedly accelerate the transition to net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2024/25, the federal government will contribute $530 million to the fund. While the fund maintains emissions-reduction targets for projects, several projects approved for funding will not reduce GHG emissions in any measurable way—for example, “climate-friendly” home tours and funding for climate advocacy groups in Ottawa. In other words, the GMF is spending taxpayer dollars on projects that make no apparent progress towards the GMF’s stated goal.

In total, these eight spending initiatives add up to approximately $10.7 billion in potential savings for the 2024-25 fiscal year alone. And remember, these are just the low-hanging fruit. The next federal government can find further savings through a more comprehensive review of all spending.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

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

Business

Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder

Published on

Mike Davies calls for ambition and reform to build a stronger Canada

A shift in ambition

A year after the Trans Mountain Expansion Project came into service, Mike Davies, Senior Director of Marine Development at Trans Mountain, told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that the project’s success should mark the beginning of a new national mindset — one defined by ambition, reform, and nation building.

“It took fifteen years to get this version of the project built,” Davies said. “During that time, Canadian producers lost about $50 billion in value because they were selling into a discounted market. We have some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas, but we can only trade with one other country. That’s unusual.”

With the expansion now in operation, that imbalance is shifting. “The differential on Canadian oil has narrowed by about $13 billion,” he said. “That’s value that used to be extracted by the United States and now stays in Canada — supporting healthcare, reconciliation, and energy transformation. About $5 billion of that is in royalties and taxes. It’s meaningful for us as a society.”

Davies rejected the notion that Trans Mountain was a public subsidy. “The federal government lent its balance sheet so that nation-building infrastructure could get built,” he said. “In our first full year of operation, we’ll return more than $1.3 billion to the federal government, rising toward $2 billion annually as cleanup work wraps up.”

At the Westridge Marine Terminal, shipments have increased from one tanker a week to nearly one a day, with more than half heading to Asia. “California remains an important market,” Davies said, “but diversification is finally happening — and it’s vital to our long-term prosperity.”

Fixing the system to move forward

Davies said this moment of success should prompt a broader rethinking of how Canada approaches resource development. “We’re positioned to take advantage of this moment,” he said. “Public attitudes are shifting. Canadians increasingly recognize that our natural resource advantages are a strength, not a liability. The question now is whether governments can seize it — and whether we’ll see that reflected in policy.”

He argued that governments have come to view regulation as a “free good,” without acknowledging its economic consequences. “Over the past decade, we’ve seen policy focus almost exclusively on environmental and reconciliation objectives,” he said. “Those are vital, but the public interest extends well beyond that — to include security, economic welfare, the rule of law, transparency, and democratic participation.”

Davies said good policy should not need to be bypassed to get projects built. “I applaud the creation of a Major Projects Office, but it’s a disgrace that we have to end run the system,” he said. “We need to fix it.”

He called for “deep, long-term reform” to restore scalability and investment confidence. “Linear infrastructure like pipelines requires billions in at-risk capital before a single certificate is issued,” he said. “Canada has a process for everything — we’re a responsible country — but it doesn’t scale for nation-building projects.”

Regulatory reform, he added, must go hand in hand with advancing economic reconciliation. “The challenge of our generation is shifting Indigenous communities from dependence to participation,” he said. “That means real ownership, partnership, and revenue opportunities.”

Davies urged renewed cooperation between Alberta and British Columbia, calling for “interprovincial harmony” on West Coast access. “I’d like to see Alberta see B.C. as part of its constituency,” he said. “And I’d like to see B.C. recognize the need for access.”

He summarized the path forward in plain terms: “We need to stem the exit of capital, create an environment that attracts investment, simplify approvals to one major process, and move decisions from the courts to clear legislation. If we do that, we can finally move from being a market hostage to being a competitor — and a nation builder.”

Continue Reading

Business

Canada is still paying the price for Trudeau’s fiscal delusions

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Lee Harding

Trudeau’s reckless spending has left Canadians with record debt, poorer services and no path back to a balanced budget

Justin Trudeau may be gone, but the economic consequences of his fiscal approach—chronic deficits, rising debt costs and stagnating growth—are still weighing heavily on Canada

Before becoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau famously said, “The budget will balance itself.” He argued that if expenditures stayed the same, economic growth would drive higher tax revenues and eventually outpace spending. Voila–balance!

But while the theory may have been sound, Trudeau had no real intention of pursuing a balanced budget. In 2015, he campaigned on intentionally overspending and borrowing heavily to build infrastructure, arguing that low interest rates made
it the right time to run deficits.

This argument, weak in its concept, proved even more flawed in practice. Postpandemic deficits have been horrendous, far exceeding the modest overspending initially promised. The budgetary deficit was $327.7 billion in 2020–21, $90.3 billion the year following, and between $35.3 billion and $61.9 billion in the years since.

Those formerly historically low interest rates are also gone now, partly because the federal government has spent so much. The original excuse for deficits has vanished, but the red ink and Canada’s infrastructure deficit remain.

For two decades, interest payments on federal debt steadily declined, falling from 24.6 per cent of government revenues in 1999–2000 to just 5.9 per cent in 2021–22—thanks largely to falling interest rates and prior fiscal restraint. But that trend has reversed. By 2023–24, payments surged past 10 per cent for the first time in over a decade, as rising interest rates collided with record federal debt built up under Trudeau.

Rising debt costs are only part of the story. Federal revenues aren’t what they could have been because Canada’s economy has stagnated. High immigration, which drives productivity down, is the only thing masking our lacklustre GDP growth. Altogether, Canada was 35th among 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for per capita GDP growth from 2014 to 2022 at just 0.2 per cent. By comparison, Ireland led at 45.2 per cent, followed by the U.S. at 20.8 per cent.

Why should a country like Canada, so blessed with natural resources and knowhow, do so poorly? Capital investment has fled because our government has made onerous regulations, especially hindering our energy industry. In theory, there’s now a remedy. Thanks to new legislation, the Carney government can extend its magic sceptre to those who align with its agenda to fast-track major projects and bypass the labyrinth it created. But unless you’re onside, the red tape still strangles you.

But as the private sector withers under red tape, Ottawa’s civil service keeps ballooning. Some trimming has begun, rattling public sector unions. Still, Canada will be left with at least five times as many federal tax employees per capita as the U.S.

Canada also needs to ease its hell-bent pursuit of net-zero carbon emissions. Hydrocarbons still power the Canadian economy—from vehicles to home heating—and aren’t practically replaceable. Canada has already proven that chasing net zero leads to near-zero per capita growth. Despite high immigration, the OECD projects Canada to have the lowest overall GDP growth between 2021 and 2060.

The Nov. 4 release of the federal budget is better late than never. So would be a plan to grow the economy, slash red tape and eliminate the deficit. But we’re unlikely to get one.

Trudeau may be gone, but his legacy of fiscal recklessness is alive and well.

Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that  strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Trending

X