Connect with us

Business

Cost of federal government debt rising for Canadians

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Jake Fuss

As the federal deficit persists and government debt mounts, the burden of debt interest costs is growing for Canadian taxpayers.

The Trudeau government is on track for another large budget deficit forecasted at $40.0 billion, slightly larger than the $35.3 billion deficit last year. The government’s long-term forecast suggests deficits will continue throughout the projection period, which ends in 2028/29.

There’s nothing new about the federal books being splashed with red ink. The Trudeau government has run significant deficits every year of its tenure. What’s different this time, however, is that due to higher interest rates the cost of the government’s borrowing is much higher. As a result, debt costs are set to increase significantly in the years ahead, which will burden taxpayers today and in the future while also making it harder for future prime ministers and finance ministers to balance their books.

Let’s dig a bit deeper into the numbers. When the Trudeau government took power during fiscal year 2015/16, debt interest costs were $21.8 billion. In 2021/22, despite a long string of deficits and huge increase in debt, low interest rates during the period of intensive borrowing prevented a surge in debt interest costs, which stood at $24.5 billion.

But last fiscal year marked the start of a new chapter in Canada’s fiscal history as higher interest rates combined with significant debt accumulation caused debt interest costs to rise substantially, from $24.5 billion to $35.0 billion. Another similar increase is expected this year, with debt costs forecasted to rise to $46.5 billion—a 90 per cent increase in just two years with a further projected increase to $52.4 billion for next year.

This sudden increase in debt interest costs has important and immediate implications for federal finances. In 2021/22, 5.9 per cent of all federal revenue was spent on paying the interest on federal debt. By next year, according to Trudeau government forecasts, this will rise to 10.8 per cent.

Canadian history shows us how debt interest costs can quickly spiral out of control. During the debt crisis of the early 1990s, after many years of continuous deficits, debt interest costs were consuming one-third of every dollar Ottawa collected. Today’s debt interest costs are not as high as they were in the 1990s, but there’s no reason to wait until a crisis develops to take action.

The fact that debt interest is taking a bigger bite out of federal revenue should not just be a matter of academic concern for public finance economists. It affects all Canadian taxpayers. A larger share of the money collected from individuals and businesses being spent on debt leaves less for other priorities such as tax relief, which can help encourage economic growth, or core public services that Canadians value.

The Trudeau government has often spoken about the benefits of fiscal restraint but has thus far failed to exercise much of it. If the prime minister and his cabinet want to halt the growth in debt interest they must reverse the free spending that has characterized their time in government to slow the accumulation of debt.

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

Alberta

Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

Published on

From Pierre Poilievre

The tiny town of Hardisty, Alberta (623 people) moves $90 billion in energy a year—that’s more than the GDP of some countries.

Continue Reading

Business

Why it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast

Published on

The Port of Prince Rupert on the north coast of British Columbia. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Moratorium does little to improve marine safety while sending the wrong message to energy investors

In 2019, Martha Hall Findlay, then-CEO of the Canada West Foundation, penned a strongly worded op-ed in the Globe and Mail calling the federal ban of oil tankers on B.C.’s northern coast “un-Canadian.”

Six years later, her opinion hasn’t changed.

“It was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it,” said Hall Findlay, now director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

The moratorium, known as Bill C-48, banned vessels carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of oil from accessing northern B.C. ports.

Targeting products from one sector in one area does little to achieve the goal of overall improved marine transport safety, she said.

“There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast,” she said.

Hall Findlay is a former Liberal MP who served as Suncor Energy’s chief sustainability officer before taking on her role at the University of Calgary.

She sees an opportunity to remove the tanker moratorium in light of changing attitudes about resource development across Canada and a new federal government that has publicly committed to delivering nation-building energy projects.

“There’s a greater recognition in large portions of the public across the country, not just Alberta and Saskatchewan, that Canada is too dependent on the United States as the only customer for our energy products,” she said.

“There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.”

The Business Council of British Columbia, which represents more than 200 companies, post-secondary institutions and industry associations, echoes Hall Findlay’s call for the tanker ban to be repealed.

“Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast,” said Denise Mullen, the council’s director of environment, sustainability and Indigenous relations.

“This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.

“This results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.”

The ban on tanker traffic specifically in northern B.C. doesn’t make sense given Canada already has strong marine safety regulations in place, Mullen said.

Notably, completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2024 also doubled marine spill response capacity on Canada’s West Coast. A $170 million investment added new equipment, personnel and response bases in the Salish Sea.

“The [C-48] moratorium adds little real protection while sending a damaging message to global investors,” she said.

“This undermines the confidence needed for long-term investment in critical trade-enabling infrastructure.”

Indigenous Resource Network executive director John Desjarlais senses there’s an openness to revisiting the issue for Indigenous communities.

“Sentiment has changed and evolved in the past six years,” he said.

“There are still concerns and trust that needs to be built. But there’s also a recognition that in addition to environmental impacts, [there are] consequences of not doing it in terms of an economic impact as well as the cascading socio-economic impacts.”

The ban effectively killed the proposed $16-billion Eagle Spirit project, an Indigenous-led pipeline that would have shipped oil from northern Alberta to a tidewater export terminal at Prince Rupert, B.C.

“When you have Indigenous participants who want to advance these projects, the moratorium needs to be revisited,” Desjarlais said.

He notes that in the six years since the tanker ban went into effect, there are growing partnerships between B.C. First Nations and the energy industry, including the Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG project and the Nisga’a Nation’s Ksi Lisims LNG project.

This has deepened the trust that projects can mitigate risks while providing economic reconciliation and benefits to communities, Dejarlais said.

“Industry has come leaps and bounds in terms of working with First Nations,” he said.

“They are treating the rights of the communities they work with appropriately in terms of project risk and returns.”

Hall Findlay is cautiously optimistic that the tanker ban will be replaced by more appropriate legislation.

“I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country,” she said.

“Repealing C-48 would be a sign of that happening.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X