Business
Reality check—Canadians are not getting an income tax cut
From the Fraser Institute
By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss
On the campaign trail, both the Conservatives and the Liberals promised to cut personal income taxes, and with the Liberal Party winning a minority, one assumes the Carney government will fulfill the promise and reduce the bottom personal income tax rate from 15 to 14 per cent. However, in reality, due to the dismal state of federal finances, neither party actually offered a tax reduction but rather simply a deferral of taxes to the future.
The key variable in any government’s fiscal policy is spending. It represents the amount of resources the government plans to marshal for its various programs and transfers. At any given point in time, a country has only so many resources (i.e. raw materials, workers, equipment, etc.) and a government’s spending plan represents the share of those resources it intends to use for its purposes rather than leaving them in the hands of the people, families and businesses that actually created them.
Taxes are simply the way governments finance that spending. But it’s not the only way. Governments in many western countries, particularly Canada and the United States, have increasingly relied on borrowing to finance current spending. Instead of raising taxes today to pay for increased spending, governments defer those taxes into the future by borrowing and increasing government debt.
According to the Trudeau government’s last economic update, Ottawa expected to collect $516.2 billion this year (2025/26) but planned to spend $558.3 billion on programs and debt interest payments. The difference—$42.2 billion—represents how much the federal government plans to borrow.
According to the Liberal Party’s election platform, the promised tax cut to the lowest personal income tax rate will reduce revenues by a projected $4.2 billion this year. If the Liberal platform also reduced spending by at least the same amount, the tax cut would represent a real reduction in the amount of resources used by government and thus a genuine reduction in the tax bill for Canadians.
But the Liberal platform doesn’t reduce spending. In fact, it proposes marked increases ($29.4 billion this year) on already record levels of spending by the previous government. And the planned deficit this year is expected to increase from a projected $42.2 billion under Trudeau to $62.3 billion under Carney.
Put differently, Prime Minister Carney plans to use more resources in government for his new spending and investments compared to Trudeau. However, Carney plans to collect slightly less taxes now by shifting the burden to more borrowing, which simply means more debt and higher debt interest payments, and ultimately higher taxes in the future.
These decisions are not also without immediate costs. Under Trudeau, total federal debt increased from $1.1 trillion in 2014/15 (the year before he took office) to an expected $2.3 trillion this year. (Again, Carney plans to increase the amount of debt accumulated this year and at least the next three years.) Debt interest payments also increased from $24.2 billion the year before Trudeau took office to a projected $54.2 billion this year.
Carney’s plan, which includes higher debt levels, means those interest costs will increase. Interest payments represent resources extracted from Canadians that are not available for actual programs such as health care or genuine tax relief.
So while the new government may tell Canadians that its delivering tax relief, it’s not. It’s simply kicking the can down the road by financing higher spending through more borrowing. That means higher interest costs, higher debt and ultimately higher taxes in the future.
From Pierre Poilievre
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ian Madsen
Canada’s growing LNG exports are opening global markets and reducing dependence on U.S. prices, if Ottawa allows the pipelines and export facilities needed to reach those markets
Canada’s LNG advantage is clear, but federal bottlenecks still risk turning a rare opening into another missed opportunity
Canada is finally in a position to profit from global LNG demand. But that opportunity will slip away unless Ottawa supports the pipelines and export capacity needed to reach those markets.
Most major LNG and pipeline projects still need federal impact assessments and approvals, which means Ottawa can delay or block them even when provincial and Indigenous governments are onside. Several major projects are already moving ahead, which makes Ottawa’s role even more important.
The Ksi Lisims floating liquefaction and export facility near Prince Rupert, British Columbia, along with the LNG Canada terminal at Kitimat, B.C., Cedar LNG and a likely expansion of LNG Canada, are all increasing Canada’s export capacity. For the first time, Canada will be able to sell natural gas to overseas buyers instead of relying solely on the U.S. market and its lower prices.
These projects give the northeast B.C. and northwest Alberta Montney region a long-needed outlet for its natural gas. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing made it possible to tap these reserves at scale. Until 2025, producers had no choice but to sell into the saturated U.S. market at whatever price American buyers offered. Gaining access to world markets marks one of the most significant changes for an industry long tied to U.S. pricing.
According to an International Gas Union report, “Global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade grew by 2.4 per cent in 2024 to 411.24 million tonnes, connecting 22 exporting markets with 48 importing markets.” LNG still represents a small share of global natural gas production, but it opens the door to buyers willing to pay more than U.S. markets.
LNG Canada is expected to export a meaningful share of Canada’s natural gas when fully operational. Statistics Canada reports that Canada already contributes to global LNG exports, and that contribution is poised to rise as new facilities come online.
Higher returns have encouraged more development in the Montney region, which produces more than half of Canada’s natural gas. A growing share now goes directly to LNG Canada.
Canadian LNG projects have lower estimated break-even costs than several U.S. or Mexican facilities. That gives Canada a cost advantage in Asia, where LNG demand continues to grow.
Asian LNG prices are higher because major buyers such as Japan and South Korea lack domestic natural gas and rely heavily on imports tied to global price benchmarks. In June 2025, LNG in East Asia sold well above Canadian break-even levels. This price difference, combined with Canada’s competitive costs, gives exporters strong margins compared with sales into North American markets.
The International Energy Agency expects global LNG exports to rise significantly by 2030 as Europe replaces Russian pipeline gas and Asian economies increase their LNG use. Canada is entering the global market at the right time, which strengthens the case for expanding LNG capacity.
As Canadian and U.S. LNG exports grow, North American supply will tighten and local prices will rise. Higher domestic prices will raise revenues and shrink the discount that drains billions from Canada’s economy.
Canada loses more than $20 billion a year because of an estimated $20-per-barrel discount on oil and about $2 per gigajoule on natural gas, according to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy’s energy discount tracker. Those losses appear directly in public budgets. Higher natural gas revenues help fund provincial services, health care, infrastructure and Indigenous revenue-sharing agreements that rely on resource income.
Canada is already seeing early gains from selling more natural gas into global markets. Government support for more pipelines and LNG export capacity would build on those gains and lift GDP and incomes. Ottawa’s job is straightforward. Let the industry reach the markets willing to pay.
Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Media bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
Sometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoIntegration Or Indignation: Whose Strategy Worked Best Against Trump?
-
COVID-191 day agoUniversity of Colorado will pay $10 million to staff, students for trying to force them to take COVID shots
-
Banks2 days agoTo increase competition in Canadian banking, mandate and mindset of bank regulators must change
-
Business2 days agoLoblaws Owes Canadians Up to $500 Million in “Secret” Bread Cash
-
Focal Points2 days agoCommon Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
-
espionage1 day agoWestern Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoWayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
-
Agriculture1 day agoCanada’s air quality among the best in the world