Economy
Federal government should listen to Canadians and restrain spending in upcoming budget
From the Fraser Institute
By Grady Munro and Jake Fuss
The Trudeau government has repeatedly demonstrated a proclivity to increase spending and run deficits. Recent polling data shows that most Canadians are not in favour of this approach. When it tables its next budget on April 16, the government should listen to Canadians, restrain spending and provide a concrete plan to balance the budget.
The Trudeau government has increased spending substantially since taking office in 2015. When comparing the levels of inflation-adjusted, per-person program spending under every prime minister, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has overseen the five-highest years of spending in the country’s history—even when COVID-related spending is excluded. Unsurprisingly, this proclivity to spend has resulted in eight consecutive deficits from 2015/16 to 2022/23, with another six planned from 2023/24 to 2028/29.
These eight years of borrowing have contributed to an $867.2 billion (or 82.0 per cent) increase in total gross government debt since 2014/15. Not only does this represent hundreds of billions that must be paid back by future generations, this debt run-up has also imposed significant costs on taxpayers through rising interest payments. In 2023/24, interest costs on federal government debt will reach a projected $46.5 billion—meaning more taxpayer dollars will go towards servicing debt than child-care benefits ($31.2 billion).
Again, while the Trudeau government was originally elected on the promise of higher spending for infrastructure and temporary deficits, recent polling data shows that Canadians are not happy with this approach—62.9 per cent of Canadians want the Trudeau government to cut spending. Conversely, less than a quarter (24.6 per cent) of respondents want the government to continue as planned (8.7 per cent want further increases in spending).
Of the respondents that feel the government should cut spending, 60.1 per cent want to use the savings to repay debt while 39.9 per cent want tax cuts. Debt reduction or tax relief would be a welcome development. But how much would the federal government need to cut spending to be in a position to balance the budget in the near future?
A recent study shows the federal government could simply limit the growth in annual program spending to 0.3 per cent for two years and balance the budget by 2026/27. In other words, the government could grow annual program spending by $2.9 billion from 2024/25 to 2026/27 and still balance the budget.
This is not to say the government wouldn’t face tough decisions in determining how to limit spending growth, and which areas of spending to target, but there’s a clear path to budget balance if the government wants to respect the wishes of most Canadians. And there are clear areas of spending where savings could be found.
For example, corporate welfare (i.e. government subsidies to businesses). Federal business subsidies nearly doubled from $6.5 billion in 2019 to $11.2 billion in 2022, yet research shows that they do little to promote economic growth and may actually harm the economy. Reducing or eliminating corporate welfare would help restrain overall spending.
After nearly a decade of growing spending and continuous deficits, Canadians have expressed a desire for the federal government to finally change its approach to fiscal policy. Through restrained spending there’s a clear path to a balanced budget that brings opportunities for debt reduction or tax relief—a path the Trudeau government can choose in its upcoming budget.
Authors:
Bruce Dowbiggin
Integration Or Indignation: Whose Strategy Worked Best Against Trump?
““He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.” George Bernard Shaw
In the days immediately following Donald Trump’s rude intervention into the 2025 Canadian federal election— suggesting Canada might best choose American statehood— two schools of thought emerged.
The first and most impactful school in the short term was the fainting-goat response of Canadian’s elites. Sensing an opening in which to erode Pierre Poilievre’s massive lead in the 2024 polls over Justin Trudeau, the Laurentian elite concocted Elbows Up, a self-pity response long on hurt feelings and short on addressing the issues Trump had cited in his trashing of the Canadian nation state.
In short order they fired Trudeau into oblivion, imported career banker Mark Carney as their new leader in a sham convention and convinced Canada’s Boomers that Trump had the tanks ready to go into Saskatchewan at a moment’s notice. The Elbows Up meme— citing Gordie Howe— clinched the group pout.

(In fact, Trump has said that America is the world’s greatest market, and if those who’ve used it for free in the past [Canada] want to keep special access they need to pay tariffs to the U.S. or drop protectionist charges on dairy and more against the U.S.)
The ruse worked out better than they could have ever imagined with Trump even saying he preferred to negotiate with Carney over Poilievre. In short order the Tories were shoved aside, the NDP kneecapped and the pet media anointed Carney the genius skewing Canada away from its largest trade partner to the Eurosphere. We remain in that bubble, although the fulsome promises of Carney’s first days are now coming due.
Which brings us to the second reaction. That was Alberta premier Danielle Smith bolting to Mar A Lago in the days following Trump’s comments. Her goal was to put pride aside and accept that a new world order was in play for Canada. She met with U.S. officials and, briefly, with Trump to remind them that Canada’s energy industry was integral to American prosperity and Canadian stability.
Needless to say, the fainting goats pitched a fit that not everyone was clutching pearls and rending garments in the wake of Trump’s dismissive assessment of his northern neighbours. Their solution to Trump was to join China in retaliatory tariffs— the only two nations to do so— and to boycott American products and travel. Like the ascetic monks they cut themselves off from real life. Trump has yet to get back to Carney the Magnificent

And Smith? She was a “traitor” or a “subversive” who should be keel hauled in the North Saskatchewan. For much of the intervening months she has been attacked at home in Alberta by the N-Deeps and in Ottawa by just about everyone on CBC, CTV, Global and the Globe & Mail. “How could she meet with the Cheeto?”
Nonetheless conservatives in the province moved toward a more independence within Canada. Smith articulated her demands for Alberta to prevent a referendum on whether to remain within Confederation. At the top of her list were pipelines and access to tidewater. Ergo, a no-go for BC’s squish premier David Eby who is the process of handing over his province to First Nations.
It became obvious that for all of Carney’s alleged diplomacy in Europe and Asia (is the man ever home?) he had a brewing disaster in the West with Alberta and Saskatchewan growing restless. In a striking move against the status quo, Nutrien announced it would ship its potash to tidewater via the U.S., thereby bypassing Vancouver’s strike-prone, outdated port and denying them billions.

Suddenly, Smith’s business approach began making eminent good sense if the goal is to keep Canada as one. So we saw last week’s “memorandum of understanding” between Alberta and Ottawa trading off carbon capture and carbon taxes for potential pipelines to tidewater on the B.C. coast. A little bit of something for everyone and a surrender on other things.
The most amazing feature of the Mark Carney/Danielle Smith MOU is that both politicians probably need the deal to fail. Carney can tell fossil-fuel enemy Quebec that he tried to reason with Smith, and Smith can say she tried to meet the federalists halfway. Failure suits their larger purposes. Which is for Carney to fold Canada into Euro climate insanity and Smith into a strong leverage against the pro-Canada petitioners in her province.
Soon enough, at the AFN Special Chiefs Assembly, FN Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told Carney that “Turtle Island” (the FN term for North America popularized by white hippy poet Gary Snyder) belongs to the FN people “from coast to coast to coast.” The pusillanimous Eby quickly piped up about tanker bans and the sanctity of B.C. waters etc.
Others pointed out the massive flaw in a plan to attract private interests to build a vital bitumen pipeline if the tankers it fills are not allowed to sail through the Dixon Entrance to get to Asia.
But then Eby got Nutrien’s message that his power-sharing with the indigenous might cause other provinces to bypass B.C. (imagine California telling Texas it can’t ship through its ports over moral objections to a product). He’s now saying he’s open to pipelines but not to lift the tanker ban along the coast. Whatever.
Meanwhile the kookaburras of isolation back east continue with virtue signalling on American booze— N.S. to sell off its remains stocks — while dreaming that Trump’s departure will lead to the good-old days of reliance on America’s generosity.
But Smith looks to be wining the race. B.C.’s population shrank 0.04 percent in the second quarter of 2025, the only jurisdiction in Canada to do so. Meanwhile, Alberta is heading toward five million people, with interprovincial migrants making up 21 percent of its growth.
But what did you expect from the Carney/ Eby Tantrum Tandem? They keep selling fear in place of GDP. As GBS observed, “You have learnt something. That always feels at first as if you have lost something.”
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.
Business
Canada’s climate agenda hit business hard but barely cut emissions
This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Gwyn Morgan
Canada is paying a steep economic price for climate policies that have delivered little real environmental progress
In 2015, the newly elected Trudeau government signed the Paris Agreement. The following year saw the imposition of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, which included more than 50 measures aimed at “reducing carbon emissions and fostering clean technology solutions.” Key among them was economy-wide carbon “pricing,” Liberal-speak for taxes.
Other measures followed, culminating last December in the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, targeting emissions of 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. It included $9.1 billion for retrofitting structures, subsidizing zero-emission vehicles, building charging stations and subsidizing solar panels and windmills. It also mandated the phaseout of coal-fired power generation and proposed stringent emission standards for vehicles and buildings.
Other “green initiatives” included the “on-farm climate action fund,” a nationwide reforestation initiative to plant two billion trees, the “Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program” to promote net-zero standards in new construction, and a “Green Municipal Fund” to support municipal decarbonization. That’s a staggering list of nation-impoverishing subsidies, taxes and restrictions.
Those climate measures come at a real cost to the industry that drives the nation’s economy.
The Trudeau government cancelled the Northern Gateway oil pipeline to the northwest coast, which had been approved by the Harper government, costing sponsors hundreds of millions of dollars in preconstruction expenditures. The political and regulatory morass the Liberals created eventually led to the cancellation of all but one of the 12 LNG export proposals.
Have all those taxes and regulatory measures reduced Canada’s fossil-fuel consumption? No. As Bjorn Lomborg has reported, between the election of the Trudeau government in 2015 through 2023, fossil fuels’ share of Canada’s energy supply increased from 75 to 77 per cent.
That dismal result wasn’t for lack of trying. The Fraser Institute has found that Ottawa and the four biggest provinces have either spent or forgone a mind-numbing $158 billion to create just 68,000 “clean” jobs, increasing the “green economy” by a minuscule 0.3 percentage points to 3.6 per cent of GDP at an eye-watering cost of more than $2.3 million per job.
That’s Canada’s emissions reduction debacle. What’s the global picture? A decade after Paris, 80 per cent of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels. World energy demand is up 150 per cent. Canada, which produces roughly 1.5 per cent of global emissions, cannot influence that trajectory. And, as Lomborg writes: “achieving net zero emissions by 2050 would require the removal of the equivalent of the combined emissions of China and the United States in each of the next five years. This puts us in the realm of science fiction.”
Does this mean our planet will become unlivable? A U.S. Department of Energy report issued in July is grounds for optimism. It finds that “claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.” And it goes on: “CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed and aggressive mitigation policies could be more detrimental than beneficial.”
U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright responded to the report by saying: “Climate change is real … but it is not the greatest threat facing humanity … (I)mproving the human condition depends on access to reliable, affordable energy.”
That leaves no doubt as to where our largest trading partner stands on carbon emissions. But don’t expect Prime Minister Mark Carney, who helped launch the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) at COP 26 in that city in 2021 and co-chaired it until this January, to soften his stand on carbon taxes. His just-released budget imposes carbon tax increases of $80 to $170 per ton by 2030 on our already struggling industries.
Doing so increases Canadian businesses’ competitive disadvantage with our most important trading partner while doing essentially nothing to help the environment.
Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta Sports Hall of Fame Announces Class of 2026 Inductees
-
Business21 hours agoCanada’s climate agenda hit business hard but barely cut emissions
-
Business2 days agoNew Chevy ad celebrates marriage, raising children
-
Automotive2 days agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
MAiD1 day agoFrom Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Alberta2 days agoThis new Canada–Alberta pipeline agreement will cost you more than you think
-
Energy2 days agoUnceded is uncertain
-
Business1 day agoIs Carney Falling Into The Same Fiscal Traps As Trudeau?


