Connect with us

Business

Ten years of overspending and fiscal mismanagement weighing Canada down

Published

6 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

The 17th century statesman Oliver Cromwell is credited with the phrase “Trust in God and keep your powder dry,” referring to the need to keep musket gunpowder dry so when it’s needed, it’s ready. The phrase morphed into a modern-day financial principle for governments to keep their finances sustainable so that in times of recession or crisis, they have the financial resources available to respond. The fiscal mismanagement of the last decade and the utter failure to keep our fiscal powder dry has placed Canadian government finances in a total mess.

The basic idea is for governments to balance their budgets (or better yet, run surpluses) when the economy is growing, so resources are available when recessions hit.

The last decade was a time of spending and borrowing in good and bad times alike, with the only constant in the corridors of government being how can we borrow more so we can spend even more.

For context, the Trudeau government was first elected in 2015 with a promise to run deficits totalling $25.1 billion over three years then return to a balanced budget in 2019/20. The federal deficit in 2015/16 was $2.9 billion, total federal debt stood at $1.1 trillion, and interest costs totalled $21.8 billion.

Fast-forward to 2019/20, just before COVID. The federal deficit was $39.4 billion, more than the entire borrowing originally planned by the Trudeau Liberals over the previous three years, and federal debt nearly reached $1.3 trillion.

COVID, and the government’s response to it, obviously increased spending and borrowing. However, two caveats. First, a number of analyses demonstrated that Ottawa’s spending was not targeted to those in need and went on for too long. So, while a response was needed, a more measured and competent approach would have reduced the amount of spending and borrowing during the pandemic.

Second, and more importantly, federal spending did not return to pre-COVID levels after the pandemic. Instead, Ottawa ratcheted up spending and borrowing permanently post-COVID.

According to projections in the 2024 Economic Update, (the latest federal financial update, since the government did not table a spring budget), the deficit for 2024/25 was $48.3 billion with no return to budget balance within the next five years, federal debt approached $2.2 trillion and borrowing costs reached $53.7 billion.

To paraphrase Cromwell’s warning, the Trudeau Liberals allowed almost all of the fiscal powder to get wet, leaving the new Carney government in a fiscal mess, which it seems to be making worse.

The new prime minister has committed to a balanced budget for operations (excludes borrowing for selected infrastructure and related projects) within three years but excludes any reductions to programs that provide income transfers to Canadians or cash transfers to the provinces (e.g. for social programs or health care). In addition, Carney has committed to increasing defence and related border security spending. These policies make a balanced budget exceedingly difficult—and the balanced budget commitment was made pre-Trump tariffs.

recent estimate projected that the deficit for the current year could reach $92.2 billion after accounting for Carney’s election commitments and recent changes, with total borrowing over the next four years totalling $311.0 billion. This estimate also includes some “internal savings” the Carney government believes it can achieve within the bureaucracy.

And it’s not just Ottawa. The Ontario government projects a budget deficit of $14.6 billion this year, and continues its longstanding habit of pushing a balanced budget out further and further into the future. Quebec’s projected deficit is only slightly less at $11.4 billion. British Columbia projects a deficit of $10.9 billion with no end in sight to the borrowing (and is in fact borrowing at historic levels). And even Alberta budgeted for a deficit this year of $5.2 billion. And all of the remaining provinces except Saskatchewan project deficits.

Simply put, Ottawa and most of the provinces have not demonstrated fiscal restraint to keep their fiscal powders sufficiently dry when the next recession or crisis hits. Now that the Trump tariffs have arrived, and Canada’s economy is weakening, government finances will weaken even further. This is a lesson for voters and governments alike—that it’s critical for long-term financial sustainability to keep the fiscal powder dry during good times, meaning spending restraint and debt reduction, to ensure governments have the resources needed for the next downturn.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

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

P.E.I. Moves to Open IRAC Files, Forcing Land Regulator to Publish Reports After The Bureau’s Investigation

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Following an exclusive report from The Bureau detailing transparency concerns at Prince Edward Island’s land regulator — and a migration of lawyers from firms that represented the Buddhist land-owning entities the regulator had already probed — the P.E.I. Legislature has passed a new law forcing the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (IRAC) to make its land-investigation reports public.

The bill — introduced by Green Party Leader Matt MacFarlane — passed unanimously on Wednesday, CTV News reported. It amends the Lands Protection Act to require IRAC to table final investigation reports and supporting documents in the Legislature within 15 days of completion.

MacFarlane told CTV the reform was necessary because “public trust … is at an all-time low in the system,” adding that “if Islanders can see that work is getting done, that the (LPA) is being properly administered and enforced, that will get some trust rebuilt in this body.”

The Bureau’s report last week underscored that concern, showing how lawyers from Cox & Palmer — the firm representing the Buddhist landholders — steadily moved into senior IRAC positions after the regulator quietly shut down its mandated probe into those same entities. The issue exploded this fall when a Legislative Committee subpoena confirmed that IRAC’s oft-cited 2016–2018 investigation had never produced a final report at all.

There have been reports, including from CBC, that the Buddhist landholders have ties to a Chinese Communist Party entity, which leaders from the group deny.

In the years following IRAC’s cancelled probe into the Buddhist landholders, The Bureau reported, Cox & Palmer’s general counsel and director of land joined IRAC, and the migration of senior former lawyers culminated this spring, with former premier Dennis King appointing his own chief of staff, longtime Cox & Palmer partner Pam Williams, as IRAC chair shortly after the province’s land minister ordered the regulator to reopen a probe into Buddhist landholdings.

The law firm did not respond to questions, while IRAC said it has strong measures in place to guard against any conflicted decision-making.

Reporting on the overall matter, The Bureau wrote that:

“The integrity of the institution has, in effect, become a test of public confidence — or increasingly, of public disbelief. When Minister of Housing, Land and Communities Steven Myers ordered IRAC in February 2025 to release the 2016–2018 report and reopen the investigation, the commission did not comply … Myers later resigned in October 2025. Days afterward, the Legislative Committee on Natural Resources subpoenaed IRAC to produce the report. The commission replied that no formal report had ever been prepared.”

The Bureau’s investigation also showed that the Buddhist entities under review control assets exceeding $480 million, and there is also a planned $185-million campus development in the Town of Three Rivers, citing concerns that such financial power, combined with a revolving door between key law firms, political offices and the regulator, risks undermining confidence in P.E.I.’s land-oversight regime.

Wednesday’s new law converts the expectation for transparency at IRAC, voiced loudly by numerous citizens in this small province of about 170,000, into a statutory obligation.

Housing, Land and Communities Minister Cory Deagle told CTV the government supported the bill: “We do have concerns about some aspects of it, but the main principles of what you’re trying to achieve are a good thing.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Business

Mark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

After scathing warnings from interim budget officer Jason Jacques, Liberals move to silence dissent and install a compliant insider with “tact and discretion.”

It’s remarkable, isn’t it? After a decade of gaslighting Canadians about their so-called “fiscally responsible” governance, the Liberal Party, now under the direction of Mark Carney, finally runs into a problem they can’t spin: someone told the truth. Jason Jacques, the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, was appointed for six months, six months. And within weeks, he did something this government considers a fireable offense: he read the books, looked at the numbers, and spoke plainly. That’s it. His crime? Honesty.

Here’s what he found. First, the deficit. Remember when Trudeau said “the budget will balance itself”? That myth has now mutated into a projected $68.5 billion deficit for 2025–26, up from $51.7 billion the year before. Jacques didn’t just disagree with it. He called it “stupefying,” “shocking,” and, this is the one they hate the most, “unsustainable.” Because if there’s one thing Ottawa elites can’t handle, it’s accountability from someone who doesn’t need a job after this.

But Jacques didn’t stop there. He pointed out that this government has no fiscal anchor. None. Not even a fake one. A fiscal anchor is a target, like a deficit limit or a falling debt-to-GDP ratio—basic stuff for any country pretending to manage its money. Jacques said the Liberals have abandoned even that pretense. In his words, there’s no clear framework. Just blind spending. No roadmap. No compass. No brakes.

And speaking of GDP, here’s the kicker: the debt-to-GDP ratio, which Trudeau once swore would always go down, is now heading up. Jacques projects it rising from 41.7% in 2024–25 to over 43% by 2030–31. And what happens when debt rises and growth slows? You pay more just to service the interest. That’s exactly what Jacques warned. He said the cost of carrying the debt is eating into core government operations. That means fewer services. Higher taxes. Slower growth. The burden gets passed to your children while Mark Carney gives another speech in Zurich about “inclusive capitalism.”

And let’s talk about definitions. Jacques flagged that the Liberals are now muddying the waters on what counts as operating spending versus capital spending. Why does that matter? Because if you redefine the terms, you can claim to be balancing the “operating budget” while secretly racking up long-term debt. It’s accounting gimmickry, a shell game with your tax dollars.

He also pointed to unaccounted spending, about $20 billion a year in campaign promises that haven’t even been formally costed yet. Add that to their multi-decade defense commitments, green subsidies, and inflated federal payroll, and you’re looking at an avalanche of unmodeled liabilities.

And just to make this circus complete, Jacques even criticized the way his own office was filled. The Prime Minister can handpick an interim PBO with zero parliamentary input. No transparency. No debate. Just a quiet appointment, until the appointee grows a spine and tells the public what’s really going on.

Now the Liberals are racing to replace Jacques. Why? Because he said all of this publicly. Because he didn’t play ball. Because his office dared to function as it was intended: independently. They’re looking for someone with “tact and discretion.” That’s what the job listing says. Not independence. Not integrity. Tact. Discretion. In other words: someone who’ll sit down, shut up, and nod politely while Carney and Champagne burn through another $100 billion pretending it’s “investment.”

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about replacing a bureaucrat. It’s about neutering the last shred of fiscal oversight left in Ottawa. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is supposed to be a firewall between reckless political ambition and your wallet. But in Carney’s Canada, independence is an inconvenience. So now, instead of extending Jacques’ term, something that would preserve continuity and show respect for accountability, the Liberals are shopping for a compliant technocrat. Someone who won’t call a $68.5 billion deficit “stupefying.” Someone who’ll massage the numbers just enough to keep the illusion intact.

They don’t want an economist. They want a courtier. Someone with just enough credentials to fake credibility, and just enough cowardice to keep their mouth shut when the spending blows past every so-called “anchor” they once pretended to respect. That’s the game. Keep the optics clean. Keep the watchdog muzzled. And keep Canadians in the dark while this government drives the country off a fiscal cliff.

But let me say it plainly, thank god someone in this country still believes in accountability. Thank God Jason Jacques stepped into that office and had the guts to tell the truth, not just to Parliament, but to the Canadian people. And thank God Pierre Poilievre has the common sense, the spine, and the clarity to back him. While Mark Carney and his Laurentian elite pals are busy gutting oversight, rewriting the rules, and flooding the economy with borrowed billions, it’s men like Jacques who refuse to play along. He looked at the books and didn’t see “investment”—he saw a ticking fiscal time bomb. And instead of ducking, he sounded the alarm.

Poilievre, to his credit, is standing firmly behind the man. He understands that without a real watchdog, Parliament becomes a stage play, just actors and scripts, no substance. Backing Jacques isn’t just good politics. It’s basic sanity. It’s the minimum standard for anyone who still thinks this country should live within its means, tell the truth about its finances, and respect the people footing the bill.

So while the Liberals scramble to muzzle dissent and hire another smiling yes-man with a resume full of buzzwords and a Rolodex full of Davos invites, at least one opposition leader is saying: No. We need a watchdog, not a lapdog. And in a city full of spineless bureaucrats, that’s not just refreshing—it’s absolutely essential.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X