New fiscal approach necessary to reduce Ottawa’s mountain of debt

Apparently, despite a few days of conflicting statements from the government, the Carney government now plans to table a budget in the fall. If the new prime minister wants to reduce Ottawa’s massive debt burden, which Canadians ultimately bear, he must begin to work now to reduce spending.

According to the federal government’s latest projections, from 2014/15 to 2024/25 total federal debt is expected to double from $1.1 trillion to a projected $2.2 trillion. That means $13,699 in new federal debt for every Canadian (after adjusting for inflation). In addition, from 2020 to 2023, the Trudeau government recorded the four highest years of total federal debt per person (inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history.

How did this happen?

From 2018 to 2023, the government recorded the six highest levels of program spending (inflation-adjusted, on a per-person basis) in Canadian history—even after excluding emergency spending during COVID. Consequently, in 2024/25 Ottawa will run its tenth consecutive budget deficit since 2014/15.

Of course, Canadians bear the burden of this free-spending approach. For example, over the last several years federal debt interest payments have more than doubled to an expected $53.7 billion this year. That’s more than the government plans to spend on health-care transfers to the provinces. And it’s money unavailable for programs including social services.

In the longer term, government debt accumulation can limit economic growth by pushing up interest rates. Why? Because governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing, and this competition puts upward pressure on interest rates. Higher interest rates deter private investment in the Canadian economy—a necessary ingredient for economic growth—and hurt Canadian living standards.

Given these costs, the Carney government should take a new approach to fiscal policy and begin reducing Ottawa’s mountain of debt.

According to both history and research, the most effective and least economically harmful way to achieve this is to reduce government spending and balance the budget, as opposed to raising taxes. While this approach requires tough decisions, which may be politically unpopular in some quarters, worthwhile goals are rarely easy and the long-term gain will exceed the short-term pain. Indeed, a recent study by Canadian economist Bev Dahlby found the long-term economic benefits of a 12-percentage point reduction in debt (as a share of GDP) substantially outweighs the short-term costs.

Unfortunately, while Canadians must wait until the fall for a federal budget, the Carney government’s election platform promises to add—not subtract—from Ottawa’s mountain of debt and from 2025/26 to 2028/29 run annual deficits every year of at least $47.8 billion. In total, these planned deficits represent $224.8 billion in new government debt over the next four years, and there’s currently no plan to balance the budget. This represents a continuation of the Trudeau government’s approach to rack up debt and behave irresponsibly with federal finances.

With a new government on Parliament Hill, now is the time for federal policymakers to pursue the long-ignored imperative of reducing government debt. Clearly, if the Carney government wants to prioritize debt reduction, it must rethink its fiscal plan and avoid repeating the same mistakes of its predecessor.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Why Some Albertans Say Separation Is the Only Way

Don't Miss

Mounting evidence suggests emissions cap will harm Canadians

Todayville

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

Death by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet

International / 6 hours ago

Russia Now Open To Ukraine Joining EU, Officials Briefed On Peace Deal Say

International / 7 hours ago

Two states designate Muslim group as terrorist

Business

Major tax changes in 2026: Report

Published on December 15, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its annual New Year’s Tax Changes report today to highlight the major tax changes in 2026.

“There’s some good news and bad news for taxpayers in 2026,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “The federal government cut income taxes, but it’s hiking payroll taxes. The government cancelled the consumer carbon tax, but it’s hammering Canadian businesses with a higher industrial carbon tax.”

Payroll taxes: The federal government is raising the maximum mandatory Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance contributions in 2026. These payroll tax increases will cost a worker up to an additional $262 next year.

For workers making $85,000 or more, federal payroll taxes (CPP and EI tax) will cost $5,770 in 2026. Their employers will also be forced to pay $6,219.

Income tax: The federal government cut the lowest income tax rate from 15 to 14 per cent. This will save the average taxpayer $190 in 2026, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Carbon taxes: The government cancelled its consumer carbon tax effective April 1, 2025. However, the government still charges carbon taxes through its industrial carbon tax and a hidden carbon tax embedded in fuel regulations.

The industrial carbon tax will increase to $110 per tonne in 2026. While the government hasn’t provided further details on how much the industrial carbon tax will cost Canadians, 70 per cent of Canadians believe businesses pass on most or some of the cost of the tax to consumers, according to a Leger poll.

Alcohol taxes: Federal alcohol taxes are expected to increase by two per cent on April 1, 2026. This alcohol tax hike will cost taxpayers about $41 million in 2026-27, according to industry estimates.

First passed in the 2017 federal budget, the alcohol escalator tax automatically increases excise taxes on beer, wine and spirits every year without a vote in Parliament. Since being imposed, the alcohol escalator tax has cost taxpayers about $1.6 billion, according to industry estimates.

“Canadians pay too much tax because the government wastes too much money,” Terrazzano said. “Canadians are overtaxed and need serious tax cuts to help make life more affordable and our economy more competitive.

“Prime Minister Mark Carney needs to significantly cut spending, provide major tax relief and scrap all carbon taxes.”

You can read the CTF’s New Year’s Tax Changes report here.

Automotive

Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles

Published on December 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”

And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.

So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.

But is that true?

Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.

Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.

Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.

However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.

Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.

So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.