Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Federal government’s accounting change reduces transparency and accountability

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

All Canadians should care about government transparency. In Ottawa, the federal government must provide timely and comprehensible reporting on federal finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. And yet, the Carney government’s new spending framework—which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget—will actually reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.

The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: the operating budget and the capital budget. Spending on government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces (for health care, for example) and to people (e.g. Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will fall within the capital budget. Prime Minister Carney plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 while increasing spending within the capital budget (which will be funded by more borrowing).

According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” But in reality, it will muddy the waters and make it harder to evaluate the state of federal finances.

First off, the change will make it more difficult to recognize the actual size of the deficit. While the Carney government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29, this does not mean it plans to stop borrowing money. In fact, it will continue to borrow to finance increased capital spending, and as a result, after accounting for both operating and capital spending, will increase planned deficits over the next four years by a projected $93.4 billion compared to the Trudeau government’s last spending plan. You read that right—Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

In addition to obscuring the amount of borrowing, splitting the budget allows the government to get creative with its accounting. Certain types of spending clearly fall into one category or another. For example, salaries for bureaucrats clearly represent day-to-day operations while funding for long-term infrastructure projects are clearly capital investments. But Carney’s definition of “capital spending” remains vague. Instead of limiting this spending category to direct investments in long-term assets such as roads, ports or military equipment, the government will also include in the capital budget new “incentives” that “support the formation of private sector capital (e.g. patents, plants, and technology) or which meaningfully raise private sector productivity.” In other words, corporate welfare.

Indeed, based on the government’s definition of capital spending, government subsidies to corporations—as long as they somehow relate to creating an asset—could potentially land in the same spending category as new infrastructure spending. Not only would this be inaccurate, but this broad definition means the government could potentially balance the operating budget simply by shifting spending over to the capital budget, as opposed to reducing spending. This would add to the debt but allow the government to maneuver under the guise of “responsible” budgeting.

Finally, rather than split federal spending into two budgets, to increase transparency the Carney government could give Canadians a better idea of how their tax dollars are spent by providing additional breakdowns of line items about operating and capital spending within the existing budget framework.

Clearly, Carney’s new spending framework, as laid out in the Liberal election platform, will only further complicate government finances and make it harder for Canadians to hold their government accountable.

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

Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.

The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:

• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.

• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.

• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.

• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.

“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.

“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”

Four Climate Fallacies

  • This study examines four climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change.
  • Fallacy 1: Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism. As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
  • Fallacy 2: Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change. Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
  • Fallacy 3: Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air. However, when looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
  • Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change. This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three. An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.
Kenneth-Green-2017.jpg

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s economic pain could be a blessing in disguise

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Roslyn Kunin

Tariffs, inflation, and falling incomes sound bad, but what if they’re forcing us to finally fix what’s broken?

Canada is facing serious economic headwinds—from falling incomes to rising inflation and U.S. trade hostility—but within this turmoil lies an  opportunity. If we respond wisely, this crisis could become a turning point, forcing long-overdue reforms and helping us build a stronger, more independent economy.

Rather than reacting out of frustration, we can use these challenges to reassess what’s holding us back and move forward with practical solutions. From
trade policy to labour shortages and energy development, there are encouraging shifts already underway if we stay focused.

A key principle when under pressure is not to make things worse for ourselves. U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, and the chaotic renegotiation of NAFTA/CUSMA, certainly hurt our trade-dependent economy. But retaliatory tariffs don’t work in our favour. Canadian imports make
up a tiny fraction of the U.S. economy, so countermeasures barely register there, while Canadian consumers end up paying more. The federal government’s own countertariffs on items like orange juice and whisky raised costs here without changing American policy.

Fortunately, more Canadians are starting to realize this. Some provinces have reversed bans on U.S. goods. Saskatchewan, for example, recently lifted
restrictions on American alcohol. These decisions reflect a growing recognition that retaliating out of pride often means punishing ourselves.

More constructively, Canada is finally doing what should have happened long ago: diversifying trade. We’ve put too many economic eggs in one
basket, relying on an unpredictable U.S. market. Now, governments and businesses are looking for buyers elsewhere, an essential step toward greater stability.

At the same time, we’re starting to confront domestic barriers that have held us back. For years, it’s been easier for Canadian businesses to trade with the U.S. than to ship goods across provincial borders. These outdated restrictions—whether on wine, trucks or energy—have fractured our internal market. Now, federal and provincial governments are finally taking steps to create a unified national economy.

Labour shortages are another constraint limiting growth. Many Canadian businesses can’t find the skilled workers they need. But here, too, global shifts
are opening doors. The U.S.’s harsh immigration and research policies are pushing talent elsewhere, and Canada is emerging as the preferred alternative.
Scientists, engineers and graduate students, especially in tech and clean energy, are increasingly choosing Canada over the U.S. due to visa uncertainty and political instability. Our universities are already benefiting. If we continue to welcome international students and skilled professionals, we’ll gain a long-term advantage.

Just as global talent is rethinking where to invest their future, Canada has a chance to reassert leadership in one of its foundational industries: energy.
The federal government is now adopting a more balanced climate policy, shifting away from blanket opposition to carbon-based energy and focusing instead on practical innovation. Technologies such as carbon capture and storage are reducing emissions and helping clean up so-called dirty oil. These cleaner energy products are in demand globally.

To seize that opportunity, we need infrastructure: pipelines, refining capacity and delivery systems to get Canadian energy to world markets and across our own country. Projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, along with east-west grid connections and expanded refining, are critical to reducing dependence on U.S. imports and unlocking Canada’s full potential.

Perhaps the most crucial silver lining of all is a renewed awareness of the value of this country. As we approach July 1, more Canadians are recognizing how fortunate we are. Watching the fragility of democracy in the U.S., and confronting the uncomfortable idea of being reduced to a 51st state, has reminded us that Canada matters. Not just to us, but to the world.

Dr. Roslyn Kunin is a respected Canadian economist known for her extensive work in economic forecasting, public policy, and labour market analysis. She has held various prominent roles, including serving as the regional director for the federal government’s Department of Employment and Immigration in British Columbia and Yukon and as an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Kunin is also recognized for her contributions to economic development, particularly in Western Canada. 

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