Business
Here are four ways the next federal government can cut spending
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
With a federal election on the horizon, it’s worth reflecting on the Trudeau government’s extraordinary fiscal legacy, which includes record-high levels of spending (even after excluding emergency COVID spending), an uninterrupted string of budget deficits, a near doubling of the federal debt from $1.1 trillion to $2.1 trillion, and sky-high federal debt interest payments, which will reach a projected $51.9 billion (more than all GST revenue) this fiscal year.
Clearly, the next federal government, whoever that may be, must get smarter about government spending. Fortunately, as noted in our new study published by the Fraser Institute, there are many areas within the federal government to find savings.
For example, this fiscal year (2024/25) the government will spend a projected $3.5 billion through the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB). Established by the Trudeau government in 2017, the CIB is a federal Crown corporation tasked with investing and attracting investment in infrastructure projects across Canada. Despite approving “investments” totalling $13.2 billion (as of the fourth quarter of 2023-24), the CIB has demonstrated an alarming lack of progress. As of July 2024, only two (out of 76) CIB-funded projects had been completed—the purchase of 20 electric buses in Edmonton and the construction of two solar facilities in Calgary. Small wonder that a 2022 multi-partisan House of Commons committee report recommended the government abolish the CIB.
To find more savings, the government should look at its seven Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), which provide financial assistance (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to businesses in specific regions across the country. Total spending will reach a projected $1.5 billion this fiscal year. But research shows that corporate welfare does little to nothing to promote widespread economic growth but simply allows the government to pick winners and losers in the free market. And rather than using concrete objectives and results to justify their existence, the RDAs rely on vague platitudes such as “businesses are growing” and “communities are developing economically.”
The government should also eliminate its so-called “Strategic Innovation Fund,” which spends tax dollars (a projected $2.4 billion this fiscal year) to simply shift jobs and investment away from some firms and industries to firms and industries favoured by the government, with no net benefit for the overall economy. And “Global Innovation Clusters,” which incentivize firms to spend time and resources modifying their businesses to secure government grants (worth a projected $202.3 million this fiscal year) rather than developing new and improved goods and services.
Finally, there’s the Green Municipal Fund (GMF), which uses federal tax dollars (including a projected $530 million this fiscal year) to bankroll municipal projects that purportedly accelerate the transition to “net-zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But several current projects (e.g. “climate-friendly” home tours, funding for climate advocacy groups in Ottawa) will not reduce GHG emissions in any measurable way. In other words, the GMF is spending taxpayer dollars on projects that make no progress towards the GMF’s stated goal.
In total, our study highlights eight areas where the federal government should cut spending, with potential savings totalling $10.7 billion this fiscal year alone. By cancelling these wasteful programs, the government could eliminate roughly one-quarter of the current budget deficit.
Until policymakers in Ottawa get serious about cutting wasteful spending, budget deficits will likely continue. Smaller and smarter government in Ottawa is both possible and necessary.
Jake Fuss
Grady Munro
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
At Tesla’s Austin headquarters, investors backed Musk’s 12-step plan that ties his potential trillion-dollar payout to a series of aggressive financial and operational milestones, including raising the company’s valuation from roughly $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and selling one million humanoid robots within a decade. Musk hailed the outcome as a turning point for Tesla’s future.
“What we’re about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla but a whole new book,” Musk said, as The New York Times reported.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The decision cements investor confidence in Musk’s “moonshot” management style and reinforces the belief that Tesla’s success depends heavily on its founder and his leadership.
Tesla Annual meeting starting now
https://t.co/j1KHf3k6ch— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2025
“Those who claim the plan is ‘too large’ ignore the scale of ambition that has historically defined Tesla’s trajectory,” the Florida State Board of Administration said in a securities filing describing why it voted for Mr. Musk’s pay plan. “A company that went from near bankruptcy to global leadership in E.V.s and clean energy under similar frameworks has earned the right to use incentive models that reward moonshot performance.”
Investors like Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood defended Tesla’s decision, saying the plan aligns shareholder rewards with company performance.
“I do not understand why investors are voting against Elon’s pay package when they and their clients would benefit enormously if he and his incredible team meet such high goals,” Wood wrote on X.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment Management — one of Tesla’s largest shareholders — broke ranks, however, and voted against the pay plan, saying that the package was excessive.
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk,” the firm said.
The vote comes months after Musk wrapped up his short-lived government role under President Donald Trump. In February, Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team sparked a firestorm when they announced plans to eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development, drawing backlash from Democrats and prompting protests targeting Musk and his companies, including Tesla.
Back in May, Musk announced that his “scheduled time” leading DOGE had ended.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Conrad Eder
Frontier Centre for Public Policy study reveals a decade of inflated Liberal forecasts—a track record that casts a long shadow over Carney’s first budget
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has released a major new study revealing that the Trudeau government’s federal budget forecasts from 2016 to 2025 were consistently inaccurate and biased — a record that casts serious doubt on the projections in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first budget.
Carney’s 2025–26 federal budget forecasts a $78.3-billion deficit — twice the size projected last year and four times what was forecast in Budget 2022. But if recent history is any guide, Canadians have good reason to question whether even this ballooning deficit reflects fiscal reality.
The 4,000-word study, Measuring Federal Budgetary Balance Forecasting Accuracy and Bias, by Frontier Centre policy analyst Conrad Eder, finds that forecast accuracy collapsed after the Trudeau government took office:
- Current-year forecasts were off by an average of $22.9 billion, or one per cent of GDP.
- Four-year forecasts missed the mark by an average of $94.4 billion, or four per cent of GDP.
- Long-term projections consistently overstated Canada’s fiscal health, showing a clear optimism bias.
Eder’s analysis shows that every three- and four-year forecast under Trudeau predicted a stronger financial position than what actually occurred, masking the true scale of deficits and debt accumulation. The study concludes that this reflects a systemic optimism bias, likely rooted in political incentives: short-term optics with no regard to long-term consequences.
“With Prime Minister Carney now setting Canada’s fiscal direction, it’s critical to assess his projections in light of this track record,” said Eder. “The pattern of bias and inaccuracy under previous Liberal governments gives reason to doubt the credibility of claims that deficits will shrink over time. Canadians deserve fiscal forecasts that are credible and transparent — not political messaging disguised as economic planning.”
The study warns that persistent optimism bias erodes fiscal accountability, weakens public trust and limits citizens’ ability to hold government to account — a threat to both economic sustainability and democratic transparency.
B.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land
The era of Climate Change Alarmism is over
Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
A Story So Good Not Even The Elbows Up Crew Could Ruin It
-
espionage22 hours agoU.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs
-
Daily Caller2 days agoUS Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report
-
Business1 day agoU.S. Supreme Court frosty on Trump’s tariff power as world watches
-
Energy2 days agoEby should put up, shut up, or pay up
-
Justice1 day agoCarney government lets Supreme Court decision stand despite outrage over child porn ruling
-
Business12 hours agoHere’s what pundits and analysts get wrong about the Carney government’s first budget
-
Business2 days ago
The Liberal budget is a massive FAILURE: Former Liberal Cabinet Member Dan McTeague
-
Daily Caller1 day agoUN Chief Rages Against Dying Of Climate Alarm Light