Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

Federal government’s fiscal plan raises red flags

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens, Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The Trudeau government recently released its fiscal update, which provides revised estimates of spending, taxing and borrowing. A careful examination of the update raises several red flags about the state of Canada’s national finances.

First, some analyses raised concerns about the state of federal borrowing, which are well founded. While the government downplays the level of potential borrowing over the six years covered in the fiscal update, the projected deficit—that is, the amount of spending in a specific year in excess of the amount of revenues—will reach $40.0 billion this year (2023-24) and $38.4 billion next year. However, the estimate for next year does not include the national pharmacare plan that the Trudeau government has agreed to as part of its governing agreement with the NDP.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) estimated that a national pharmacare plan modelled on the Quebec system would cost $11.2 billion in 2024-25 (the provinces would likely cover some of this). The 2019 report of the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare, better known as the Hoskins Commission, estimated that a national pharmacare program would cost $15.3 billion in 2027.

Consequently, if the government introduces national pharmacare next year, without any offsetting reduction in other spending and/or meaningful tax increases, the deficit for 2024-25 would reach $49.6 billion, not the reported $38.4 billion. The higher borrowing needed to finance pharmacare continues each and every year, meaning that the overall level of federal debt would also increase.

A second red flag, which the fiscal update ignored, relates to Canada meeting its international commitment for defence spending. Canada is a party to the NATO agreement calling on member countries to spend 2.0 per cent of GDP on national defence. In 2022, Canada spent just 1.3 per cent of GDP on defence. According to the PBO, for the federal government to meet its NATO spending obligations next year (2024-25), it must spend an additional $14.5 billion. That means annual borrowing could be as high as $64.1 billion if both additional defence and pharmacare spending were financed entirely by new borrowing.

And there are legitimate reasons to believe the government would not raise taxes to finance a new pharmacare program. According to polling data in 2022, 79 per cent of survey respondents supported a new national pharmacare program—but support plummeted to just 40 per cent when the new hypothetical program was financed by higher taxes, specifically a higher GST.

That brings us to the third red flag. The total national debt will reach a projected $2.1 trillion next year (excluding the additional potential spending and borrowing noted on pharmacare and defence) and the interest costs on that debt are expected to reach $52.4 billion. For reference, the total national debt stood at $1.1 trillion in 2015-16 when the Trudeau Liberals took office.

By 2028-29, the last year included in the fiscal update, the federal government expects interest costs to reach $60.7 billion. That’s only slightly less than total planned health-care spending by Ottawa for the same year ($62.9 billion). And this is actually a conservative estimate since it excludes potential higher borrowing for programs such as pharmacare and thus higher debt levels. It also ignores any possibility of a downgrading in the ratings for Canada’s debt, which would result in higher interest costs. And it ignores the risk of an economic slowdown or recession that would further increase borrowing and ultimately debt interest costs.

While the federal government, particularly the prime minister and his finance minister, continue to describe their stewardship of federal finances as prudent and responsible, close examination of their fiscal update reveals that federal finances may soon deteriorate from their already worrying position.

Business

Upcoming federal budget likely to increase—not reduce—policy uncertainty

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Grady Munro 

The government is opening the door to cronyism, favouritism and potentially outright corruption

In the midst of budget consultations, the Carney government hopes its upcoming fall budget will provide “certainty” to investors. While Canada desperately needs to attract more investment, the government’s plan thus far may actually make Canada less attractive to investors.

Canada faces serious economic challenges. In recent years, the economy (measured on an inflation-adjusted per-person basis) has grown at its slowest rate since the Great Depression. And living standards have hardly improved over the last decade.

At the heart of this economic stagnation is a collapse in business investment, which is necessary to equip Canadian workers with the tools and technology to produce more and provide higher quality goods and services. Indeed, from 2014 to 2022, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential construction) per worker in Canada declined (on average) by 2.3 per cent annually. For perspective, business investment per worker increased (on average) by 2.8 per cent annually from 2000 to 2014.

While there are many factors that contribute to this decline, uncertainty around government policy and regulation is certainly one. For example, investors surveyed in both the mining and energy sectors consistently highlight policy and regulatory uncertainty as a key factor that deters investment. And investors indicate that uncertainty on regulations is higher in Canadian provinces than in U.S. states, which can lead to future declines in economic growth and employment. Given this, the Carney government is right to try and provide greater certainty for investors.

But the upcoming federal budget will likely do the exact opposite.

According to Liberal MPs involved in the budget consultation process, the budget will expand on themes laid out in the recently-passed Building Canada Act (a.k.a. Bill C-5), while also putting new rules into place that signal where the government wants investment to be focused.

This is the wrong approach. Bill C-5 is intended to help improve regulatory certainty by speeding up the approval process for projects that cabinet deems to be in the “national interest” while also allowing cabinet to override existing laws, regulations and guidelines to facilitate such projects. In other words, the legislation gives cabinet the power to pick winners and losers based on vague criteria and priorities rather than reducing the regulatory burden for all businesses.

Put simply, the government is opening the door to cronyism, favouritism and potentially outright corruption. This won’t improve certainty; it will instead introduce further ambiguity into the system and make Canada even less attractive to investment.

In addition to the regulatory side, the budget will likely deter investment by projecting massive deficits in the coming years and adding considerably to federal debt. In fact, based on the government’s election platform, the government planned to run deficits totalling $224.8 billion over the next four years—and that’s before the government pledged tens of billions more in additional defence spending.

growing debt burden can deter investment in two ways. First, when governments run deficits they increase demand for borrowing by competing with the private sector for resources. This can raise interest rates for the government and private sector alike, which lowers the amount of private investment into the economy. Second, a rising debt burden raises the risk that governments will need to increase taxes in the future to pay off debt or finance their growing interest payments. The threat of higher taxes, which would reduce returns on investment, can deter businesses from investing in Canada today.

Much is riding on the Carney government’s upcoming budget, which will set the tone for federal policy over the coming years. To attract greater investment and help address Canada’s economic challenges, the government should provide greater certainty for businesses. That means reining in spending, massive deficits and reducing the regulatory burden for all businesses—not more of the same.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

OPEC+ chooses market share over stability, and Canada will pay

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Rashid Husain Syed

OPEC+ output hike could sink prices, blow an even bigger hole in Alberta’s budget and drag Canada’s economy down with it

OPEC and its allies are flooding the global oil market again, betting that regaining lost market share is worth the risk of triggering a price collapse.

On Sept. 7, eight of its leading members agreed to boost production by 137,000 barrels per day beginning in October. That move, taken more than a year ahead of schedule, marks the start of a second major unwind of previous output cuts, even as warnings of a supply glut grow. OPEC+, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, coordinates oil production targets in an effort to influence global pricing.

This isn’t oil politics in a vacuum. It’s a direct blow to Alberta’s finances, and a growing threat to Canada’s economic stability.

Canada’s broader economy depends heavily on a strong oil and gas sector, but no province is more directly reliant on resource royalties than Alberta, where oil revenues fund everything from hospitals to schools.

The province is already forecasting a $6.5-billion deficit by spring. A further slide in oil prices would deepen that gap, threatening everything from vital programs to jobs. Every drop in the benchmark West Texas Intermediate price, currently averaging around US$64, is estimated to wipe out another $750 million in annual revenue.

When Alberta’s finances falter, the ripple effects spread across the country. Equalization transfers from Ottawa to have-not provinces decline. Private investment dries up. Energy-sector jobs vanish not just in Alberta, but in supplier and service industries nationwide. Even the Canadian dollar takes a hit, reflecting reduced confidence in one of the country’s key economic engines. When Alberta stumbles, Canada’s broader economic momentum slows with it.

The timing couldn’t be crueller. October marks the end of the summer driving season, typically a lull for fuel demand. Yet extra supply is about to hit a market already leaning bearish. Oil prices have dropped roughly 15 per cent this year; Brent crude is treading just above US$65, still well beneath April’s lows.

But OPEC+ isn’t alone in raising the taps. Non-OPEC producers in Brazil, Canada, Guyana and Norway are all increasing production. The International Energy Agency warns global supply could exceed demand by as much as 500,000 barrels per day.

The market is bracing for a sustained price war. Alberta is staring down the barrel.

OPEC+ claims it’s playing the long game to reclaim market share. But gambling on long-term gains at the cost of short-term pain is reckless, especially for Alberta. The province faces immediate financial consequences: revenue losses, tougher budget decisions and diminished policy flexibility.

To make matters worse, U.S. forecasts are underwhelming, with an unexpected 2.4-million-barrel build in inventories. U.S. production remains at record highs above 13.5 million barrels per day, and refinery margins are shrinking. The signal is clear: demand isn’t coming back fast enough to absorb growing supply.

OPEC+ may think it’s posturing strategically. But for Canada, starting with Alberta, the fallout is real and immediate. It’s not just a market turn. It’s a warning blast. And the consequences? Jobs lost, public services cut and fiscal strain for months ahead.

Canada can’t direct OPEC. But it can brace for the fallout—and plan accordingly.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

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

Continue Reading

Trending

X