Federal government poised to pile on more spending and debt

Next week, the Trudeau government will release its fall fiscal update, which, considering the sorry state of federal finances, should demonstrate a newfound approach to spending and borrowing. But don’t hold your breath.

Although the Trudeau government describes itself as “fiscally responsible,” in reality it has a track record of unrestrained spending and large budget deficits. And it’s overseen the five highest years (2018 to 2022) of per-person program spending (adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history. Even excluding COVID-related spending, 2020 and 2021 remain the two highest years of per-person spending on record.

The Trudeau government has also run deficits every year since it took office in 2015—according to forecasts, this year’s deficit will eclipse $40 billion even though COVID is in the rearview mirror. Consequently, federal debt will have increased nearly $900 billion since 2014/15, up to $1.9 trillion for 2023/24.

While the prime minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland often downplay the level of debt accumulation by noting that Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7 countries (Germany, Italy, Japan, France, the United Kingdom and the United States), this is misleading.

Net debt is calculated as total (gross) debt minus all financial assets, with the implicit assumption that those assets could be used to offset debt. However, the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans (CPP and QPP) are included in the financial assets used to calculate net debt in Canada. But because CPP/QPP assets are needed for existing and future retirees, in reality they can’t be used to offset government debt.

Therefore, a better measure is gross debt, which measures all liabilities that require future payment of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor. Compared to 29 other advanced economies, including the G7 countries, Canada’s gross debt as a share of the economy ranks 20th—meaning Canada is among the most indebted countries.

Clearly, the Trudeau government has been anything but fiscally responsible. And the current levels of spending and borrowing impose real costs on Canadians.

For example, since 2014/15 federal government debt interest costs have nearly doubled—reaching an estimated $43.9 billion, or 9.6 per cent of total revenues, for 2023/24. This means roughly one in every 10 dollars Ottawa collects from Canadian taxpayers this year will go towards debt interest costs, rather than government services or tax relief.

In light of these fiscal realities, if the Trudeau government wants to move anywhere close to a balanced budget in the foreseeable future, it must take meaningful steps in the upcoming fall fiscal update to restrain spending growth.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen.

In a recent report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) estimated that, due to spending increases, the federal government will run a deficit of $46.5 billion for 2023/24—$6.4 billion more than the government’s budget projections in March.

The government will also likely include new spending in the upcoming fiscal update meant to address housing and affordability. And will likely soon table legislation on national pharmacare, which the PBO estimates will cost $11.2 billion in 2024/25 alone.

Finally, not only does this unprecedented level of spending rack up mountains of debt, according to Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem, “government spending is starting to get in the way of getting inflation back to target.” In other words, more spending by the federal government to address affordability concerns could actually worsen the problem by keeping inflation (and interest rates) higher than would otherwise be the case, eroding the purchasing power of Canadians.

While Ottawa’s fiscal situation demands a fiscally responsible fall fiscal update, it’s likely we’ll see much of the same next week from the Trudeau government—more spending and more borrowing.

Authors:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Junior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Strike Two for Guilbeault – Federal Court Overturns Plastics Ban

Don't Miss

Australian senator compares Trudeau’s treatment of Freedom Convoy protesters to Communist China

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

‘Context Of Chemsex’: Biden-Harris Admin Dumps Millions Into Developing Drug-Fueled Gay Sex App

Crime / 1 hour ago

Mexican cartels are a direct threat to Canada’s public safety, and the future of North American trade

Business / 2 hours ago

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Business

‘Context Of Chemsex’: Biden-Harris Admin Dumps Millions Into Developing Drug-Fueled Gay Sex App

Published on November 22, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Owen Klinsky

The Biden-Harris administration is spending millions funding a project to advise homosexual men on how to more safely engage in drug-fueled intercourse.

The University of Connecticut (UCONN) in July announced a five-year, $3.4 million grant from the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) for Assistant Professor Roman Shrestha to develop his app JomCare — “a smartphone-based just-in-time adaptive intervention aimed at improving access to HIV- and substance use-related harm reduction services for Malaysian GBMSM [gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men] engaged in chemsex,” university news website UCONN Today reported. “Chemsex,” according to Northern Irish LGBTQ+ nonprofit the Rainbow Project, is the involvement of drug use in one’s sex life, and typically involves Methamphetamine (crystal meth), Mephedrone (meth), and GHB and GBL (G).

Examples of the app’s use-cases include providing a user who has reported injecting drugs with prompts about ordering an at-home HIV test kit and employing safe drug injection practices, UCONN Today reported. The app is also slated to provide same-day delivery of HIV prevention drug PrEP, HIV self-testing kits and even a mood tracker.

“In Malaysia, our research has indicated that harm reduction needs of GBMSM [gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men] engaged in chemsex are not being adequately met,” Shrestha told UCONN Today. “Utilizing smartphone apps and other mHealth tools presents a promising and cost-effective approach to expand access to these services.”

Homosexuality is illegal in Malaysia and is punishable by imprisonment, according to digital LGBTQ+ rights publication Equaldex. Drug use, including of cannabis, is illegal in Malaysia, and drug trafficking can be a capital offense.

The Old Border Czar VS The New Border Czar pic.twitter.com/9Ie8JRsroR

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 12, 2024

The NIH disbursed $773,845 to Shrestha in July to conduct a 90-day trial testing the efficacy of JomCare among 482 chemsex-involved Malaysian gays. It also provided Shrestha with $191,417 in 2022 to “facilitate access to gender-affirming health care” for transgender women in the country.

“Gender-affirming care” is a euphemism used to describe a wide range of procedures, including sometimes irreversible hormone treatments that can lead to infertility as well as irreversible surgeries like mastectomies, phalloplasties and vaginoplasties.

Shrestha has a track record of researching mobile health (mHealth) initiatives for foreign homosexuals, co-authoring a 2024 study entitled, “Preferences for mHealth Intervention to Address Mental Health Challenges Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Nepal.”

The proliferation of LGBT rights has been a “foreign policy priority” under the Biden-Harris administration, a State Department spokesperson previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation, with President Joe Biden instructing federal government department heads to “to advance the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons.”

“Around the globe, including here at home, brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) activists are fighting for equal protection under the law, freedom from violence, and recognition of their fundamental human rights,” a 2021 White House memorandum states. “The United States belongs at the forefront of this struggle — speaking out and standing strong for our most dearly held values.”

President-elect Donald Trump announced on Nov. 12 that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy would collaborate to establish a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Musk claiming the agency would feature a leaderboard for the “most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars.” Some DOGE cuts could come from LGBTQ+ programs, such as a grant from the United States Agency for International Development to perform sex changes in Guatemala and State Department funding for the showing of a play in North Macedonia entitled, “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.”

“The woke mind virus consists of creating very, very divisive identity politics…[that] amplifies racism; amplifies, frankly, sexism; and all of the -isms while claiming to do the opposite,” Musk said at an event in Italy in December 2023, according to The Wall Street Journal. “It actually divides people and makes them hate each other and hate themselves.”

Shrestha and the NIH did not respond to requests for comment. When reached for comment, a UCONN spokeswoman told the Daily Caller News Foundation that, “specific questions about the grant and the decision to award it to our faculty member should be directed to the NIH, since that’s the funding agency.”

Business

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Published on November 21, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Tegan Hill

Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.

In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.

This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.

However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.

Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.

Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.

Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.

Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.

Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.