Economy
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly—government budgets in 2024

From the Fraser Institute
By Grady Munro and Jake Fuss
Research showed the federal government could balance its budget in two years by slowing spending growth, yet instead the government doubled down and increased spending well past its previous estimates (against the wishes of Canadians)
This fiscal year, most provinces (and the federal government) demonstrated irresponsible fiscal management, although some were better than others. Therefore, in the words of the 1966 film starring Clint Eastwood, let’s discuss The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Canadian government budgets in 2024.
Falling in the “good” category are Alberta and New Brunswick—the only two provinces planning to run a balanced budget in 2024/25, with Alberta forecasting a $367 million surplus and New Brunswick forecasting a $41 million surplus. Both provinces forecast surpluses until at least 2026/27, and expect net debt (total debt minus financial assets) as a share of the economy to decline in the years to come. However, what keeps these provinces from having a great budget is that both chose to further increase spending in the face of higher revenues, while failing to deliver much-needed tax relief.
Alberta in particular remains at risk of seeing future surpluses disappear, as the province relies on historically high resource revenues to fund its high spending. Should these volatile revenues decline, the province would return to operating at a deficit and growing its debt burden.
Provinces in the “bad” category include, but aren’t limited to, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. Largely due to quick growth in program spending that wipes out any revenue gains, both provinces expect deficits in 2023/24 and 2024/25 before planning to balance their budgets in 2025/26. The risks of unchecked spending growth are most salient in Saskatchewan, where just one year ago the province projected surpluses in both 2023/24 and 2024/25. And resulting from many years of deficits and debt accumulation, debt interest costs in Newfoundland and Labrador are expected to reach $2,123 per person in 2024/25, the highest in Canada.
Key governments among the “ugly” are the federal government, Ontario and British Columbia. Let’s take them one by one.
The federal government delivered a budget that continues the same failed approach that’s produced nearly a decade of stagnation in Canadian living standards. The Trudeau government plans to run a $39.8 billion deficit in 2024/25, followed by deficits of $20.0 billion or higher until at least 2028/29. Prior to the budget, research showed the federal government could balance its budget in two years by slowing spending growth, yet instead the government doubled down and increased spending well past its previous estimates (against the wishes of Canadians).
In addition to continuous spending increases and debt accumulation, the Trudeau government increased capital gains taxes on all businesses and many Canadians. Presented as a way to make the tax system more “fair” while generating $20 billion in revenue, in reality it is a harmful tax increase that is unlikely to generate the planned amount of revenues while simultaneously hindering economic growth and prosperity.
Similar to the federal government, in its 2024 budget Ontario’s Ford government simply doubled down on the same approach it’s taken in previous years. This “stay the course” fiscal plan added an average of $3.8 billion in new annual program spending (compared to last year’s budget) over the three years from 2023/24 to 2025/26. This new spending delays the province’s expected return to surpluses until 2026/27, and rather than run a $200 million surplus in 2024/25 the Ford government now plans to run a $9.8 billion deficit.
Importantly, the Ford government failed to deliver any meaningful tax relief for Ontarians in this budget, which once again breaks its promise to reduce personal income tax rates. Given that Ontarians face some of the highest personal income tax rates in North America, relief would help keep money in people’s pockets while also promoting economic growth.
Finally, the Eby government in B.C. tabled a budget that can be best described as a generational error in terms of the planned debt accumulation. The government plans to run a $7.9 billion deficit in 2024/25, followed by deficits of $7.8 billion and $6.4 billion in 2025/26 and 2026/27, respectively. In other words, the Eby government plans to run deficits in the coming years that are nearly as large or larger than those expected in Ontario, despite B.C. having a little over one-third of Ontario’s population.
Runaway spending drives these deficits and will contribute to a $55.1 billion (74.7 per cent) increase in provincial net debt from 2023/24 to 2026/27. This massive runup in debt will result in higher debt interest costs, which leaves less money available for services such as healthcare and education, or pro-growth tax relief for British Columbians.
By and large, governments across Canada demonstrated an irresponsible approach to managing public finances in this year’s round of budgets. While there were a couple of bright spots, the majority of provinces instead chose to increase spending, grow deficits and debt, and introduce little to no meaningful tax relief.
Authors:
Business
Outrageous government spending: Canadians losing over 1 billion a week to interest payments

By Franco Terrazzano
Massive borrowing, soaring interest charges unacceptable
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal government to cut spending following Thursday’s Parliamentary Budget Officer report showing debt interest charges cost taxpayers $54 billion in 2024-25.
“The PBO report shows debt interest charges cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every week,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Massive deficits mean interest charges cost taxpayers more than the feds send to the provinces in health transfers.”
The PBO projects the federal government’s deficit to be $46 billion in 2024-25.
Interest charges on the federal debt cost taxpayers $54 billion in 2024, according to the PBO’s Economic and Fiscal Monitor. For comparison, the federal government spent $52 billion through the Canada Health Transfer in 2024, according to the Fall Economic Statement. That means the government spent more money on debt interest payments than it sent to the provinces in health-care transfers.
A separate PBO report projects debt interest charges will reach $70 billion by 2029.
A recent Leger poll shows Canadians want the federal government to cut spending (45 per cent) instead of increasing spending (20 per cent) or maintaining current spending levels (19 per cent).
“Borrowing tens of billions of dollars every year is unaffordable and unacceptable,” Terrazzano said. “Canadians want
Automotive
Carney’s exercise in stupidity

By Dan McTeague
This past Tuesday, the Conservative Party put forward a motion in parliament calling on the Liberal government to immediately end their ban on gas-and-diesel driven Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, which will take full effect in 2035.
Arguing for the motion, Melissa Lantsman rightly said, “Nobody is denying people the choice to drive an electric car. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the government mandating that everybody drive an electric car.”
Unfortunately for all of us, MPs voted 194-141 to keep the EV mandate in place.
The vote itself is unsurprising, since, despite Mark Carney’s campaign-long insistence that he shouldn’t have to answer for the policies of his predecessor, he was a Trudeau advisor and confidant for years, and there is virtually no daylight between their governments on any major issue.
Still, this will be the first time that many Canadians even hear about the ICE ban, the implementation of which begins in earnest on January 1st, just about six months from now. At that time, the government will mandate that 20 per cent of all new light-duty vehicles (passenger cars, SUVs, and pickups) must be classified as “zero-emisson,” or Electric Vehicles (EVs).
How, you might ask, does the government expect automakers to ensure that, come January, one-out-of-five car-buying Canadians will choose to purchase an Electric Vehicle? Especially since consumers have been skeptical of EVs thus far, with just 13.7 per cent sold in Canada last year.
(And, as Tristin Hopper recently pointed out, even that number is misleading. “These sales are disproportionately concentrated in a single province…. Of the 81,205 zero-emission vehicles sold in Canada in the last quarter of 2024, 49,357 were sold in Quebec.” That’s 60 per cent!)
Well, the answer to that question is that manufacturers will be required to submit annual reports to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, detailing their compliance with the government’s EV targets. If they don’t meet their EV sales quota, they will face significant financial penalties.
To avoid those penalties, automakers will be forced into one option. As Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant explained, “How will carmakers ensure they sell enough electric vehicles? They will do it by drastically raising the price of internal combustion vehicles!”
That’s right, their only option will be to start increasing the price of the cars and trucks Canadians want to buy, in order to force us to buy ones we don’t want to buy.
This is madness.
To reiterate what I’ve said over and over and over again, the Liberals’ EV mandate is bad policy.
It forces Canadians to buy a product that is expensive. EVs cost more than ICE vehicles, even factoring in the government subsidies on which the EV industry has perpetually relied. Ottawa’s $5,000-per-EV rebate program ran out of money six months ago and was discontinued, at which time EV numbers really began to fall off, which is why the Liberals stated desire to toss more tax dollars at bringing it back.
And it forces us to buy a product that is poorly suited for Canada. EV batteries are bad at holding a charge in the cold, and are just generally less reliable.
We don’t have the infrastructure to support this EV transition. Our electrical grid is already strained, and doesn’t have the capacity to support millions of EVs being plugged in nightly, especially as the Trudeau/Carney Liberals progressively push us to replace reliable energy sources, like oil and natural gas, with unreliable “renewables.”
On top of all that, where do they think we’re going to get all of these glorified golf carts they’re trying to force on the Canadian public? Even with the estimated $52 billion that the Trudeau and Ford governments have thrown at the industry to subsidize the manufacture of EVs in Canada, we don’t make anywhere near enough EVs to support a full-transition.
That’s likely why left-leaning outlets have started calling on Mark Carney to lift the tariff on Chinese EVs. Taking advantage of EV mandates might be smart business for China — flood the markets of gullible nations with EVs which are cheaper than what domestic manufacturers can produce, and then jack up the price once the mandates are fully implemented and they have no competition from either traditional vehicles or other EV companies.
But us going along with that scheme is the definition of bad business. Which is probably why our automakers have started to admit that the mandates are unrealistic and call for them to be repealed.
Tuesday’s vote went the wrong way for Canadians, but kudos to the Conservatives for bringing this motion forward in the first place. I only wish they had started talking about this sooner. A national campaign would have been the perfect time to call the country’s attention to a policy which people are only vaguely aware of and which, if enacted, will make all of our lives harder and more expensive.
But there’s no time like the present. The more Canadians hear about these EV mandates, the more they hate them. If we make enough noise about this, we might just be able to change course and avert disaster.
Here’s hoping.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
-
Business1 day ago
Ottawa Slams Eby Government Over Chinese Shipyard Deal, Citing Security and Sovereignty Risks
-
Banks2 days ago
Top Canadian bank studies possible use of digital dollar for ‘basic’ online payments
-
Automotive1 day ago
Carney’s exercise in stupidity
-
Alberta1 day ago
High costs, low returns – Canada’s wildly expensive emissions cap
-
Business17 hours ago
High Taxes Hobble Canadian NHL Teams In Race For Top Players
-
National6 hours ago
Preston Manning: “Appearing to Cope” – Is This The Best We Can Do?
-
Energy9 hours ago
Energy Policies Based on Reality, Not Ideology, are Needed to Attract Canadian ‘Superpower’ Level Investment – Ron Wallace
-
Business1 day ago
Outrageous government spending: Canadians losing over 1 billion a week to interest payments