Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

The Strange Case of the Disappearing Public Accounts Report

Published

16 minute read

The Audit

 

 David Clinton

A few days ago, Public Services and Procurement Canada tabled their audited consolidated financial statements of the Government of Canada for 2024. This is the official and complete report on the state of government finances. When I say “complete”, I mean the report’s half million words stretch across three volumes and total more than 1,300 pages.

Together, these volumes provide the most comprehensive and authoritative view of the federal government’s financial management and accountability for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. The tragedy is that no one has the time and energy needed to read and properly understand all that data. But the report identifies problems serious enough to deserve the attention of all Canadians – and especially policy makers.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Following the approach of my Parliamentary Briefings series, I uploaded all three volumes of the report to my AI research assistant and asked for its thoughts. Each one of the observations that came out the other end is significant and, in calmer and more rational times, could easily have driven a week’s worth of news coverage. But given the craziness of the past few weeks and months, they’re being largely ignored.

With that in mind, I’ve made this special edition of the Parliamentary Briefings series fully accessible to all subscribers.

We begin with a summary of the purpose and scope of the three uploaded volumes of the Public Accounts of Canada for 2023–2024:


Volume I: Summary Report and Consolidated Financial Statements

  • Purpose: Provides a high-level overview of the federal government’s financial performance, presenting the consolidated financial statements audited by the Auditor General. It serves as the primary accountability report.
  • Scope:
    • Audited financial statements.
    • Analysis of revenues, expenses, and the accumulated deficit.
    • Overview of assets, liabilities, and financial position.
    • Discussion of economic context, risks, uncertainties, and ten-year comparative financial data​​.

Volume II: Details of Expenses and Revenues

  • Purpose: Presents the financial operations of the government, broken down by ministries and agencies, for detailed accountability.
  • Scope:
    • Financial transactions segregated by ministry.
    • Details of appropriations, revenues, and transfer payments.
    • Summary tables on ministerial expenditures by type, object, and other dimensions.
    • Appendices providing additional details on budgetary authorities and their sources​.

Volume III: Additional Information and Analyses

  • Purpose: Offers supplementary analyses and financial data beyond what is included in the first two volumes, focusing on revolving funds, professional services, and shared-cost programs.
  • Scope:
    • Financial statements of revolving funds (e.g., Passport Canada, Canadian Grain Commission).
    • Expenditure details on acquisitions, transfer payments, and public debt charges.
    • Analyses of federal-provincial shared-cost programs and claims against the Crown.
    • Miscellaneous financial and operational data for broader transparency​.

The Audit: Based on these documents, could you identify the most serious threats to Canada’s economic stability?


From the Public Accounts of Canada 2023–2024, several serious threats to Canada’s economic security can be identified. These threats emerge from the broader fiscal and economic analyses, contingent liabilities, and uncertainties highlighted in the documents.

1. Growing Public Debt and Debt Servicing Costs

  • Observation: Canada’s public debt charges increased significantly in 2024, rising by 35.2% year-over-year, largely due to higher interest rates on debt. The total accumulated federal debt stood at $1.24 trillion, representing 42.1% of GDP, up from 41.1% the previous year​.
  • Risk: Rising debt servicing costs reduce fiscal space for critical public investments, making the economy vulnerable to future economic shocks or downturns.

2. Contingent Liabilities and Indigenous Claims

  • Observation: The government recorded $16.4 billion in contingent liabilities related to Indigenous claims in 2024, reflecting ongoing efforts to address past injustices. These liabilities have been increasing at an average annual growth rate of 30% since 2016​.
  • Risk: The unpredictable nature and scale of these liabilities could create significant financial pressures if settlements or court decisions require substantial payouts.

3. Legacy Costs from the COVID-19 Pandemic

  • Observation: The government recorded $4.7 billion in pandemic-related expenses for 2024, including write-offs for expired vaccines and provisions for unrecovered loans and benefits​​.
  • Risk: These costs highlight vulnerabilities in emergency financial planning and expose the government to further financial risks if similar large-scale public health crises occur.

4. Economic Pressures from High Inflation and Interest Rates

  • Observation: Inflation returned to the Bank of Canada’s 2% target by mid-2024 after 41 consecutive months above this threshold. However, elevated interest rates (peaking at 5%) contributed to a softening economy​​.
  • Risk: Prolonged periods of high interest rates could suppress household and business spending, slowing economic growth and increasing the likelihood of a recession.

5. Climate Change and Environmental Commitments

  • Observation: Significant spending is allocated to addressing climate change, with over $1 billion dedicated to environmental programs in 2024, including pollution pricing proceeds and clean energy initiatives​​.
  • Risk: Canada’s reliance on resource-intensive industries and increasing costs to meet climate targets create economic vulnerabilities, particularly in regions heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

6. Global Economic Instability

  • Observation: Global supply chain disruptions, energy price volatility, and geopolitical events (e.g., Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) significantly impacted Canada’s economy, with slower GDP growth (1.5% in 2023) and reduced trade​.
  • Risk: External shocks could exacerbate domestic economic challenges, such as rising import costs or reduced demand for Canadian exports.

7. Labor Market and Productivity Challenges

  • Observation: While job creation remained positive, population growth outpaced employment gains, leading to an increase in the unemployment rate to 6.5% by October 2024. Productivity improvements have been uneven​.
  • Risk: Labor shortages in key sectors and declining workforce participation among certain demographics (e.g., aging population) could undermine economic resilience.

8. Dependence on Resource Revenues

  • Observation: Volatile global commodity prices impacted nominal GDP growth, with gains slowing to 2.9% in 2023 after double-digit growth in prior years​.
  • Risk: Fluctuations in resource revenues leave Canada exposed to external shocks, particularly in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, heavily reliant on oil and gas.

These challenges underscore the need for proactive fiscal and policy measures to safeguard economic stability, manage liabilities, and address emerging risks.


The Audit: What would you recommend as the three most urgent areas to address to avoid deepening the economic crisis?


1. Manage Rising Public Debt and Debt Servicing Costs

  • Why It’s Urgent: The rapid increase in public debt charges (35.2% in 2024) is crowding out fiscal space for essential programs. The federal debt, at 42.1% of GDP, has become a significant liability, with interest rate fluctuations posing an ongoing threat​​.
  • Recommendations:
    • Introduce stricter fiscal discipline by prioritizing expenditures that yield long-term economic benefits (e.g., infrastructure, innovation).
    • Develop a comprehensive debt reduction strategy to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio in the medium term.
    • Explore debt refinancing strategies to lock in lower interest rates where feasible.
  • Impact: Reducing debt servicing pressures will free up resources for critical investments and improve Canada’s fiscal resilience.

2. Mitigate the Economic Impact of Contingent Liabilities

  • Why It’s Urgent: Contingent liabilities related to Indigenous claims have grown exponentially (30% annually since 2016), creating fiscal unpredictability and potentially overwhelming future budgets​.
  • Recommendations:
    • Accelerate settlement negotiations to limit litigation costs and interest on outstanding claims.
    • Establish a transparent reserve fund specifically for contingent liabilities, ensuring predictable future payouts.
    • Increase collaboration with Indigenous communities to address systemic issues and prevent further claims.
  • Impact: Resolving liabilities promptly will reduce fiscal uncertainty and demonstrate Canada’s commitment to reconciliation.

3. Address Structural Labor Market and Productivity Challenges

  • Why It’s Urgent: Despite job creation, rising unemployment (6.5% in late 2024) and productivity stagnation threaten long-term economic growth. Labor shortages in critical sectors further exacerbate vulnerabilities​.
  • Recommendations:
    • Expand skilled immigration programs to address labor shortages in healthcare, technology, and green industries.
    • Increase investment in workforce retraining programs, particularly for sectors undergoing automation or transition due to climate policies.
    • Promote workplace flexibility and childcare access to increase labor force participation, particularly among women and aging workers.
  • Impact: Enhancing workforce productivity and participation will strengthen the economic foundation and support GDP growth.

Rationale for Prioritization

These areas represent the most immediate threats to economic security and fiscal stability. Addressing them proactively can reduce vulnerabilities and position Canada for sustainable growth.


The Audit: What are the most surprising and disturbing details in these documents?


1. Rapid Growth of Public Debt Charges

  • Detail: Public debt charges increased by 35.2% year-over-year to $47.3 billion, representing one of the fastest-growing expense categories. This reflects a combination of higher interest rates and the significant size of Canada’s debt​​.
  • Why Disturbing: Such a rapid increase in debt servicing costs could divert funds from essential public services and programs. It also signals limited fiscal flexibility in the event of future economic shocks.

2. Ballooning Contingent Liabilities

  • Detail: The federal government recorded $16.4 billion in expenses for Indigenous contingent liabilities in 2024. This is part of an ongoing surge, with liabilities increasing by 30% annually since 2016​​.
  • Why Disturbing: While reconciliation efforts are vital, the sheer scale and rapid growth of these liabilities are fiscally unsustainable without structural changes or dedicated funding mechanisms. The risk of further liabilities emerging adds to fiscal uncertainty.

3. Significant Write-offs and Provisions for Pandemic Programs

  • Detail: The government wrote off $1.2 billion in expired COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics and recorded $3.5 billion in provisions for unrecovered pandemic-era loans​​.
  • Why Disturbing: These figures highlight inefficiencies in planning and administration during the pandemic response, leading to substantial financial losses. The scale of unrecovered funds also raises questions about accountability in the deployment of emergency programs.

4. Rising Unemployment Despite Job Creation

  • Detail: While 475,000 jobs were created in 2023, the unemployment rate rose to 6.5% by late 2024 due to population growth outpacing employment gains​​.
  • Why Surprising: Despite strong job creation, an inability to keep pace with population growth signals structural issues in labor force integration. This poses a risk to Canada’s economic competitiveness and social cohesion.

5. Declining Corporate Income Tax Revenues

  • Detail: Corporate income tax revenues decreased by 0.7%, driven by reduced taxable income despite an overall increase in total revenues​.
  • Why Surprising: The decline in corporate tax revenues during a period of economic recovery raises concerns about potential tax avoidance, economic inequality, or over-reliance on other revenue streams, such as personal income taxes.

6. Substantial Environmental and Climate Spending

  • Detail: Over $1 billion was allocated to environmental programs, including pollution pricing proceeds. However, the documents note Canada’s slow progress toward net-zero targets and risks to resource-dependent provinces​​.
  • Why Disturbing: While necessary, this spending may be insufficient given the scale of the climate challenge. The mismatch between spending and measurable progress on climate goals risks long-term environmental and economic consequences.

7. Unanticipated Costs of Indigenous Reconciliation

  • Detail: Beyond contingent liabilities, the government is facing unpredictable settlement costs due to increasing litigation and the complexity of claims. These have already exceeded $60 billion since 2016​​.
  • Why Disturbing: The ongoing financial impact of these settlements reflects Canada’s historical neglect of Indigenous issues. Resolving these claims is essential, but the lack of predictability or dedicated funding highlights systemic shortcomings in reconciliation strategies.

8. Softened GDP Growth and Inflation Challenges

  • Detail: Real GDP growth slowed to 1.5% in 2023, and inflation remained high throughout the year, only reaching the Bank of Canada’s 2% target by mid-2024​​.
  • Why Disturbing: The prolonged inflationary period and sluggish growth signal a fragile recovery. These economic conditions could exacerbate income inequality and lead to further fiscal strain.

9. High Provisions for Unrecovered Loans

  • Detail: Provisions of $3.5 billion were recorded for emergency loans provided during the pandemic. The government continues to face difficulties in recovering these funds​.
  • Why Disturbing: This provision raises serious questions about the efficiency of loan administration and the government’s ability to safeguard public funds during emergencies.

10. Heavy Dependence on Volatile Resource Revenues

  • Detail: Nominal GDP growth slowed to 2.9% in 2023, largely due to easing commodity prices after a surge in 2022. Resource dependence remains a key economic vulnerability​.
  • Why Surprising: Despite global shifts toward renewable energy, Canada’s reliance on resource revenues remains high, posing long-term risks to economic diversification and stability.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Audit, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

 

Invite Friends

Before Post

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

Business

Here’s what pundits and analysts get wrong about the Carney government’s first budget

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

Under the new budget plan, this wedge between what the government collects in revenues versus what is actually spent on programs will rise to 13.0 per cent by 2029/30. Put differently, slightly more than one in every eight dollars sent to Ottawa will be used to pay interest on debt for past spending.

The Carney government’s much-anticipated first budget landed on Nov. 4. There’s been much discussion by pundits and analysts on the increase in the deficit and borrowing, the emphasis on infrastructure spending (broadly defined), and the continued activist approach of Ottawa. There are, however, several critically important aspects of the budget that are consistently being misstated or misinterpreted, which makes it harder for average Canadians to fully appreciate the consequences and costs of the budget.

One issue in need of greater clarity is the cost of Canada’s indebtedness. Like regular Canadians and businesses, the government must pay interest on federal debt. According to the budget plan, total federal debt will reach an expected $2.9 trillion in 2029/30. For reference, total federal debt stood at $1.0 trillion when the Trudeau government took office in 2015. The interest costs on that debt will rise from $53.4 billion last year to an expected $76.1 billion by 2029/30. Several analyses have noted this means federal interest costs will rise from 1.7 per cent of GDP to 2.1 per cent.

These are all worrying statistics about the indebtedness of the federal government. However, they ignore a key statistic—interest costs as a share of revenues. When the Trudeau government took office, interest costs consumed 7.5 per cent of revenues. This means taxpayers were foregoing 7.5 per cent of the resources they sent to Ottawa (in terms of spending on actual programs) because these monies were used to pay interest on debt accumulated from previous spending.

Under the new budget plan, this wedge between what the government collects in revenues versus what is actually spent on programs will rise to 13.0 per cent by 2029/30. Put differently, slightly more than one in every eight dollars sent to Ottawa will be used to pay interest on debt for past spending. This is one way governments get into financial problems, even crises, by continually increasing the share of revenues consumed by interest payments.

A second and fairly consistently misrepresented aspect of the budget pertains to large spending initiatives such as Build Canada Homes and Build Communities Strong Fund. The former is meant to increase the number of new homes, particularly affordable homes, being built annually and the latter is intended to provide funding to provincial governments (and through them, municipalities) for infrastructure spending. But few analysts question whether or not these programs will produce actual new spending for homebuilding or simply replace or “crowd-out” existing spending by the private sector.

Let’s first explore the homebuilding initiative. At any point in time, there are a limited number of skilled workers, raw materials, land, etc. available for homebuilding. When the federal government, or any government, initiates its own homebuilding program, it directly competes with private companies for that skilled labour (carpenters, electricians, etc.), raw materials (timber, concrete, etc.) and the land needed for development. Put simply, government homebuilding crowds out private-sector activity.

Moreover, there’s a strong argument that the crowding out by government results in less homebuilding than would otherwise be the case, because the incentives for private-sector homebuilding are dramatically different than government incentives. For example, private firms risk their own wealth and wellbeing (and the wellbeing of their employees) so they have very strong incentives to deliver homes demanded by people on time and at a reasonable price. Government bureaucrats and politicians, on the other hand, face no such incentives. They pay no price, in terms of personal wealth or wellbeing if homes, are late, not what consumers demand, or even produce less than expected. Put simply, homebuilding by Ottawa could easily result in less homes being built than if government had stayed out of the way of entrepreneurs, businessowners and developers.

Similarly, it’s debatable that infrastructure spending by Ottawa—specifically, providing funds to the provinces and municipalities—results in an actual increase in total infrastructure spending. There are numerous historical examples, including reports by the auditor general, detailing how similar infrastructure spending initiatives by the federal government were plagued by mismanagement. And in many circumstances, the provinces simply reduced their own infrastructure spending to save money, such that the actual incremental increase in overall infrastructure spending was negligible.

In reality, some of the major and large spending initiatives announced or expanded in the Carney government’s first budget, which will accelerate the deterioration of federal finances, may not deliver anything close to what the government suggests. Canadians should understand the real risks and challenges in these federal spending initiatives, along with the debt being accumulated, and the limited potential benefits.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Carney budget continues misguided ‘Build Canada Homes’ approach

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Austin Thompson

The Carney government’s first budget tabled on Tuesday promises to “supercharge” homebuilding across the country. But Ottawa’s flagship housing initiative—a new federal agency, Build Canada Homes (BCH)—risks “supercharging” federal debt instead while doing little to boost construction.

The budget accurately diagnoses the root cause of Canada’s housing shortage—costly red tape on housing projects, sky-high taxes on homebuilders, and weak productivity growth in the construction sector. But the proposed cure, BCH, does nothing to fix these problems despite receiving a five-year budget of $13 billion.

BCH’s core mandate is to build and finance affordable housing projects. But this mission is muddled by competing political priorities to preference Canadian building materials and prioritize “sustainable” construction materials. Any product that needs a government preference to be used is clearly not the most cost-effective option. The result—BCH’s “affordable” homes will cost more than they needed to, meaning more tax dollars wasted.

Ottawa claims BCH will improve construction productivity by “generating demand” (read: splashing out tax dollars) for factory-built housing. This logic is faulty—where factory-built housing is a cost-effective and desirable option, private developers are already building it. “Prioritizing” factory-built homes amounts to Ottawa trying to pick winners and losers—a strategy that reliably wastes taxpayer dollars. The civil servants running BCH lack the market knowledge and cost-cutting incentives of private homebuilders, who are far better positioned to identify which technologies will deliver the affordable homes Canadians need.

The government also insists BCH projects will attract more private investment for housing. The opposite is more likely—BCH projects will compete with private developers for limited investment dollars and construction labour. Ottawa’s intrusion into housing development could ultimately mean fewer private-sector housing projects—those driven by the real needs of homebuyers and renters, not the Carney government’s political priorities.

Despite its huge budget and broad mandate, BCH still lacks clear goals. Its only commitment so far is to “build affordable housing at scale,” with no concrete targets for how many new homes or how affordable they’ll be. Without measurable outcomes, neither Ottawa nor taxpayers will know whether BCH delivers value for money.

You can’t solve Canada’s housing crisis with yet another federal program. Ottawa should resist the temptation to act as a housing developer and instead create fiscal and economic conditions that allow the private sector to build more homes.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X