Federal government should have taken own advice about debt accumulation

In 2024/25 the federal government now expects to pay $54.1 billion in debt interest, or $1,331 per Canadian, which is $2.0 billion more than it plans to spend on health care transfers to provinces.

In the foreword of the Trudeau government’s recent budget, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland declared that, “it would be irresponsible and unfair to pass on more debt to the next generations.” Minister Freeland is absolutely right—if only she had listened to her own advice.

Fairness was the purported theme of this federal budget and nearly every new policy is presented as something that will help make life fairer for Canadians—especially younger generations. But the glaring contradiction is that partly due to all of the new spending on these policies, the Trudeau government is doing the very thing it admits is “unfair” and saddling future generations with hundreds of billions in added debt.

By 2027/28, the Trudeau government plans to add $395.6 billion to the total (gross) amount of debt held federally, which is $180.0 billion more than it planned to add just last spring. Overall, gross debt is projected to increase by nearly 20 per cent over the next four years. Adjusting for population growth and inflation during this period, by the end of 2027/28 every Canadian will be responsible for $2,301 more in gross federal debt than they are currently.

Much of this added debt stems from the introduction of new programs, which have caused federal program spending (total spending minus debt interest) over the next four years to be an expected $77.2 billion higher than was forecasted last spring. And though the Trudeau government will increase capital gains taxes to try and pay for this new spending, much of the new spending will still be financed through borrowing. Indeed, combined deficits from 2024/25 to 2027/28 are $44.7 billion higher than forecasted in last year’s budget, and there is no balanced budget in sight at all.

The problem with accumulating substantial amounts of debt, and why Minister Freeland is right when she asserts that it’s “irresponsible and unfair,” is that a growing government debt burden imposes costs on Canadians now and in the future.

One of the most important consequences of government debt are debt interest payments. These interest payments represent taxpayer dollars that don’t go towards any programs or services for Canadians, and have grown to impose a significant burden on federal finances. Specifically, in 2024/25 the federal government now expects to pay $54.1 billion in debt interest, or $1,331 per Canadian, which is $2.0 billion more than it plans to spend on health care transfers to provinces.

While debt interest costs represent a more immediate impact, debt accumulated today must also ultimately be paid for by future generations, again in the form of higher taxes. In fact, research suggests that this effect may be disproportionate, with one dollar borrowed today needing to be paid back by more than one dollar in future taxes.

One study estimates that Canadians aged 16 can expect to pay the equivalent of $29,663 over their lifetime in additional personal income taxes as a consequence of rising federal debt. Older age groups shoulder a much smaller burden in comparison. A 65-year-old can expect to pay $2,433 over their lifetime in additional personal income taxes due to rising federal debt.

The outsized burden of federal debt borne by younger generations of Canadians is hardly what any reasonable person would consider “fair.”

For all its talk about fairness and helping the next generation of Canadians, the Trudeau government’s incessant spending and substantial debt accumulation will simply result in young Canadians paying disproportionately higher taxes in the future. Does that seem fair to you?

Authors: Grady Munro Jake Fuss

Related Topics:#2024FederalBudget #FederalDebt #FederalDebtInterestPayments #FraserInstitute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss

Up Next

Toronto’s “Sankofa Square” – The terrible folly and historic injustice of erasing the legacy of abolitionist Henry Dundas

Don't Miss

No accounts on $7.9 million dollar ‘Truth’ Fund

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

The capital of capitalism elects a socialist mayor

Business / 4 hours ago

Capital Flight Signals No Confidence In Carney’s Agenda

Censorship Industrial Complex / 4 hours ago

How the UK and Canada Are Leading the West’s Descent into Digital Authoritarianism

Business

Carney government’s first budget should signal end to crippling ‘climate’ policies

Published on November 4, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The Carney government will table its long-awaited first budget tooday. The vote on the budget is expected to be a confidence vote, so the stakes are high. Everyone is speculating about what’s to be in it. CBC, the Toronto Sun and Global News are all reading the tea leaves. And I hate to miss a tea party.

The budget is, naturally, going to have major implications for Canada’s economic indicators of debt, deficit, spending, governmental expansion/contraction, and so on. I’ll leave all that macroeconomics to my colleagues at Fraser Institute. But Prime Minister Carney has made some specific claims in my areas of specialty (environment, natural resources and regulation), and has made noises about Canada becoming an “energy superpower” and “building things” again. He’s also, in speeches leading up to the budget, re-affirmed that the Trudeau-era climate-change-centric, carbon-emission-control mindset is unchanged. The wording has changed, but the focus and predicates remain. Now though, rather than pounding on terms such as carbon, greenhouse and climate change, it’s all about Canadian policy being “responsible,” “sustainable,” “moral” and “equitable.”

Here’s what I’ll look for in the budget.

First, will the government dismantle or reform bills C-48, C-69 and the oil and gas emission cap—the three-pronged trident of death for major oil and gas development in Canada? Without this, it will be difficult to take any of his talk of energy superpower or natural resource trade renaissance seriously.

Second, will the government renounce or seriously reform the economically irrational, unattainable and crippling “net-zero 2050” anti-carbon agenda and shift Canada’s climate policy from emissions abatement to something potentially more attainable, such as adaptation and resilience building? Will it free Canada’s carbon natural resource economy to be the engine of Canadian prosperity and international competitiveness once again? Or keep Canada’s carbon (oil and gas) economy (and manufacturing economy) on a path toward extinction?

Third, will the government reset the tone of Canadian culture and defuse some of the adversarial relations with resource-rich provinces by acknowledging that Canada’s natural-resource economy has been, is now and must continue to be a cornerstone in Canada’s total economy? Or will it stick to the “net-zero” extinction process for carbon emissions, which will also be an extinction process for anything that requires substantial energy generation, and for the development of natural resources as the primary wealth engine of Canada? Will the government end the disdain for the role of Canada (and notably some of Canada’s western provinces) as a natural-resources export economy?

The budget will offer a window into the mind of Prime Minister Carney on the matter of natural resources in Canada’s economy and society. With global changes undermining the international carbon control regime and idee fixe, and with an understanding that Canada is on an economic precipice, there’s an opportunity here. Let’s hope Carney works to unshackle one of Canada’s greatest engines of economic progress—its energy and natural resource production, transformation, transportation, consumption and exportation.

Canadians could use the boost in quality of life that Canada’s natural resources could bring to current and future generations.

Alberta

Alberta government’s plan will improve access to MRIs and CT scans

Published on November 4, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Tegan Hill

The Smith government may soon allow Albertans to privately purchase diagnostic screening and testing services, prompting familiar cries from defenders of the status quo. But in reality, this change, which the government plans to propose in the legislature in the coming months, would simply give Albertans an option already available to patients in every other developed country with universal health care.

It’s important for Albertans and indeed all Canadians to understand the unique nature of our health-care system. In every one of the 30 other developed countries with universal health care, patients are free to seek care on their own terms with their own resources when the universal system is unwilling or unable to satisfy their needs. Whether to access care with shorter wait times and a more rapid return to full health, to access more personalized services or meet a personal health need, or to access new advances in medical technology. But not in Canada.

That prohibition has not served Albertans well. Despite being one of the highest-spending provinces in one of the most expensive universal health-care systems in the developed world, Albertans endure some of the longest wait times for health care and some of the worst availability of advanced diagnostic and medical technologies including MRI machines and CT scanners.

Introducing new medical technologies is a costly endeavour, which requires money and the actual equipment, but also the proficiency, knowledge and expertise to use it properly. By allowing Albertans to privately purchase diagnostic screening and testing services, the Smith government would encourage private providers to make these technologies available and develop the requisite knowledge.

Obviously, these new providers would improve access to these services for all Alberta patients—first for those willing to pay for them, and then for patients in the public system. In other words, adding providers to the health-care system expands the supply of these services, which will reduce wait times for everyone, not just those using private clinics. And relief can’t come soon enough. In Alberta, in 2024 the median wait time for a CT scan was 12 weeks and 24 weeks for an MRI.

Greater access and shorter wait times will also benefit Albertans concerned about their future health or preventative care. When these Albertans can quickly access a private provider, their appointments may lead to the early discovery of medical problems. Early detection can improve health outcomes and reduce the amount of public health-care resources these Albertans may ultimately use in the future. And that means more resources available for all other patients, to the benefit of all Albertans including those unable to access the private option.

Opponents of this approach argue that it’s a move towards two-tier health care, which will drain resources from the public system, or that this is “American-style” health care. But these arguments ignore that private alternatives benefit all patients in universal health-care systems in the rest of the developed world. For example, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Australia all have higher-performing universal systems that provide more timely care because of—not despite—the private options available to patients.

In reality, the Smith government’s plan to allow Albertans to privately purchase diagnostic screening and testing services is a small step in the right direction to reduce wait times and improve health-care access in the province. In fact, the proposal doesn’t go far enough—the government should allow Albertans to purchase physician appointments and surgeries privately, too. Hopefully the Smith government continues to reform the province’s health-care system, despite ill-informed objections, with all patients in mind.