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

armed forces

How Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?

Published on

David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

To my great surprise I recently noticed that, despite being deeply engaged in wars against at least four determined enemies, Israel doesn’t spend all that much more on their military than Canada does on its forces. What might that tell us about government efficiency?

There’s fairly universal agreement that Canada doesn’t spend enough on its military. But before we can even ask how much we should be spending, we should understand how much we’re already spending. And figuring that out isn’t nearly as easy as I’d expected.

According to the 2025–26 Expenditures by Purpose data released by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence (DND) was allocated $35.7 billion (CAN). However, the New York Times recently reported that Primer Minister Carney’s $9.3 billion increase would bring the total defence-related spending to $62.7 billion – which suggests that, prior to the increase, we were set to spend $53.4 billion (CAN).

So I’ll work with both of those figures: $35.7 billion ($26 billion USD) and the pre-announcement $53.4 billion ($39 billion USD). By contrast, Israel currently spends around $37 billion (USD) on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) which is in the neighborhood of 18 percent of their total budget.¹ The IDF is (literally) getting a much bigger bang for their buck.²

I’m going to compare the military inventories of both countries to get a sense of what a dollar of government spending can get you. I understand that this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison and there are many complicating factors here. But I think the exercise could lead us to some useful insights. First off, here’s a very rough estimate of existing inventories:

I’m sure there are plenty of caveats we could apply to those numbers, including how much of that equipment is actually fit for service on any given day. But they’ll have to do.

In addition, there are currently 68,000 regular troops in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) along with 22,500 reserves, while the IDF employs 169,500 regular troops and 465,000 reserves. They also cost money.

Based on some very rough estimates,³ I’d assess the value of IDF assets at around 2.6 times the value of comparable CAF assets. That means that the IDF – using their procurement systems – would need to spend just $14.4 billion (USD) to purchase the equivalent of the current set of CAF assets.

Now compare that with our actual (pre-increase) expenditures of either $26 billion USD or $39 billion USD and it seems that we’re overspending by either 80 percent or 270 percent.

I think we’d be wise to wonder why that is.

1

For full context, Israel receives around $3.8 billion (USD) in military aid annually from the U.S.

2

Speaking of which, for simplicity, I completely left the ongoing costs of ordinance out of my calculations.

3

If you’re really interested, you can see my calculations here.

 

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

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

Trending

X