Business
Canada should match or eclipse Trump’s red-tape cutting plan
From the Fraser Institute
With all eyes focused on WWT (World War Tariff), another Trump initiative was quietly put in place last week in one of the now-signature Trump “flood the zone” initiative waves.
On Jan. 31, the Trump administration published an executive order (EO) titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and as regulatory reform initiatives go, well, it’s every anti-regulatory analyst’s dream as “each new regulation issued, at least 10 prior regulations be identified for elimination.”
For reference, one of Canada’s strongest regulatory-reform efforts (in British Columbia back in 2001) only called for a 2-for-1 ratio. Although B.C.’s effort did somewhat foreshadow Trump’s, in that it created something of a DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) when the B.C. government appointed an actual minister of deregulation to oversee the effort rather than leaving it to the bureaucracy to reform itself. And it worked. By 2004, 37 per cent of regulatory requirements in B.C. had been eliminated (exceeding the initial one-third target).
Trump’s new plan is less explicit in defining regulations, but it makes sure that new regulations cost less than the 10 regulations they replace. “For fiscal year 2025,” reads the EO, “the heads of all agencies are directed to ensure that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, being finalized this year, shall be significantly less than zero, and any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”
And Trump’s plan will put regulators in government agencies on a permanent diet, as a “total amount of incremental costs… will be allowed for each agency in issuing new regulations and repealing regulations for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2025.”
Why does this matter to Canadians?
Because, unlike those few years of B.C. regulatory reform, Canada has been wrapping itself in regulatory red-tape for decades, making our economy less competitive globally and with the United States. Between 2006 to 2018, the number of restrictive regulations in Canada grew from about 66,000 to 72,000. And according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the cost of regulation from all three levels of government to Canadian businesses totalled $38.8 billion in 2020, for a total of 731 million hours—the equivalent of nearly 375,000 fulltime jobs.
Clearly, Canada has a regulatory problem—our governments generate seemingly endless spools of regulatory red tape, which keep Canadian businesses tangled in inefficiency, wasted labour and non-competitiveness. President Trump’s new regulatory reform initiative will further increase the “red-tape gap” between Canada and the U.S.
Policymakers in Ottawa and the provinces would do well to learn about Canada’s experiences with deregulatory programs and strive to match—or beat—the new U.S. regulatory reform efforts before a massive lack of regulatory competitiveness becomes a serious problem, adding insult to injury on top of World War Tariff.
Business
Parliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending
PBO slices through Carney’s creative accounting
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to cut spending following today’s bombshell Parliamentary Budget Officer report that criticizes the government’s definition of capital spending and promise to balance the operating budget.
“The reality is that Carney is continuing on a course of unaffordable borrowing and the PBO report shows government messaging about ‘balancing the operating budget’ is not credible,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Carney is using creative accounting to hide the spiralling debt.”
Carney’s Budget 2025 splits the budget into operating and capital spending and promises to balance the operating budget by 2028-29.
However, today’s PBO budget report states that Carney’s definition of capital spending is “overly expansive.” Without using that “overly expansive” definition of capital spending, the government would run an $18 billion operating deficit in 2028-29, according to the PBO.
“Based on our definition, capital investments would total $217.3 billion over 2024-25 to 2029-30, which is approximately 30 per cent ($94 billion) lower compared to Budget 2025,” according to the PBO. “Moreover, based on our definition, the operating balance in Budget 2025 would remain in a deficit position over 2024-25 to 2029-30.”
The PBO states that the Carney government is using “a definition of capital investment that expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice.” The report specifically points out that “by including corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits and operating (production) subsidies, the framework blends policy measures with capital formation.”
The federal government plans to borrow about $80 billion this year, according to Budget 2025. Carney has no plan stop borrowing money and balance the budget. Debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $55.6 billion this year, which is more than the federal government will send to the provinces in health transfers ($54.7 billion) or collect through the GST ($54.4 billion).
“Carney isn’t balancing anything when he borrows tens of billions of dollars every year,” Terrazzano said. “Instead of applying creative accounting to the budget numbers, Carney needs to cut spending and debt.”
Business
Carney government needs stronger ‘fiscal anchors’ and greater accountability
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Grady Munro
Following the recent release of the Carney government’s first budget, Fitch Ratings (one of the big three global credit rating agencies) issued a warning that the “persistent fiscal expansion” outlined in the budget—characterized by high levels of spending, borrowing and debt accumulation—will erode the health of Canada’s finances and could lead to a downgrade in Canada’s credit rating.
Here’s why this matters. Canada’s credit rating impacts the federal government’s cost of borrowing money. If the government’s rating gets downgraded—meaning Canadian federal debt is viewed as an increasingly risky investment due to fiscal mismanagement—it will likely become more expensive for the government to borrow money, which ultimately costs taxpayers.
The cost of borrowing (i.e. the interest paid on government debt) is a significant part of the overall budget. This year, the federal government will spend a projected $55.6 billion on debt interest, which is more than one in every 10 dollars of federal revenue, and more than the government will spend on health-care transfers to the provinces. By 2029/30, interest costs will rise to a projected $76.1 billion or more than one in every eight dollars of revenue. That’s taxpayer money unavailable for programs and services.
Again, if Canada’s credit rating gets downgraded, these costs will grow even larger.
To maintain a good credit rating, the government must prevent the deterioration of its finances. To do this, governments establish and follow “fiscal anchors,” which are fiscal guardrails meant to guide decisions regarding spending, taxes and borrowing.
Effective fiscal anchors ensure governments manage their finances so the debt burden remains sustainable for future generations. Anchors should be easily understood and broadly applied so that government cannot get creative with its accounting to only technically abide by the rule, but still give the government the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. For example, a commonly-used rule by many countries (including Canada in the past) is a ceiling/target for debt as a share of the economy.
The Carney government’s budget establishes two new fiscal anchors: balancing the federal operating budget (which includes spending on day-to-day operations such as government employee compensation) by 2028/29, and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio over the years to come, which means gradually reducing the size of the deficit relative to the economy. Unfortunately, these anchors will fail to keep federal finances from deteriorating.
For instance, the government’s plan to balance the “operating budget” is an example of creative accounting that won’t stop the government from borrowing money each year. Simply put, the government plans to split spending into two categories: “operating spending” and “capital investment” —which includes any spending or tax expenditures (e.g. credits and deductions) that relates to the production of an asset (e.g. machinery and equipment)—and will only balance operating spending against revenues. As a result, when the government balances its operating budget in 2028/29, it will still incur a projected deficit of $57.9 billion when spending on capital is included.
Similarly, the government’s plan to reduce the size of the annual deficit relative to the economy each year does little to prevent debt accumulation. This year’s deficit is expected to equal 2.5 per cent of the overall economy—which, since 2000, is the largest deficit (as a share of the economy) outside of those run during the 2008/09 financial crisis and the pandemic. By measuring its progress off of this inflated baseline, the government will technically abide by its anchor even as it runs relatively large deficits each and every year.
Moreover, according to the budget, total federal debt will grow faster than the economy, rising from a projected 73.9 per cent of GDP in 2025/26 to 79.0 per cent by 2029/30, reaching a staggering $2.9 trillion that year. Simply put, even the government’s own fiscal plan shows that its fiscal anchors are unable to prevent an unsustainable rise in government debt. And that’s assuming the government can even stick to these anchors—which, according to a new report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, a federal government that can’t stick to its own fiscal anchors is nothing new. The Trudeau government made a habit of abandoning its fiscal anchors whenever the going got tough. Indeed, Fitch Ratings highlighted this poor track record as yet another reason to expect federal finances to continue deteriorating, and why a credit downgrade may be on the horizon. Again, should that happen, Canadian taxpayers will pay the price.
Much is riding on the Carney government’s ability to restore Canada’s credibility as a responsible fiscal manager. To do this, it must implement stronger fiscal rules than those presented in the budget, and remain accountable to those rules even when it’s challenging.
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoRichmond Mayor Warns Property Owners That The Cowichan Case Puts Their Titles At Risk
-
Alberta2 days agoHow economic corridors could shape a stronger Canadian future
-
Business1 day agoMark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog
-
Business2 days agoSluggish homebuilding will have far-reaching effects on Canada’s economy
-
COVID-191 day agoMajor new studies link COVID shots to kidney disease, respiratory problems
-
Daily Caller2 days agoLaura Ingraham’s Viral Clash With Trump Prompts Her To Tell Real Reasons China Sends Students To US
-
Business1 day agoP.E.I. Moves to Open IRAC Files, Forcing Land Regulator to Publish Reports After The Bureau’s Investigation
-
International23 hours agoBondi and Patel deliver explosive “Clinton Corruption Files” to Congress




