Connect with us

Economy

Federal government consistently spends beyond high spending targets

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

Post-pandemic, the Liberals raised annual spending by nearly $100 billion versus their pre-pandemic fiscal plan.

As budget season approaches, one thing is clear. If the Trudeau government is notable for planning astonishingly high levels of spending, it’s equally notable for overspending beyond its original plans. At all times—when they first took office in 2015, in the pre-pandemic years, and now—the Liberals have consistently raised their spending targets, then spent more than targeted.

Begin at the beginning. Inheriting a projected balanced budget in 2015, the Liberals proceeded to spend federal finances into deficit in the 2015-16 fiscal year (ended March 31, 2016) before presenting the first budget of their own in the spring of 2016. That budget called for $1,219 billion in program spending over the next four years. What the government actually ended up spending was $1,269 billion for the 2016-17 to 2019-20 fiscal years, blowing past their initial plan by a cumulative $50 billion.

Even worse, they set government spending on a higher trajectory—while cumulative spending in the Liberals’ first four full fiscal years in office was 4.1 per cent more than initially planned, the spending level for fiscal year 2019-20 alone was actually 11.1 per cent above the original target. So not only did the Liberals overspend their Budget 2016 fiscal plan by $50 billion over four years, they significantly weakened the fiscal outlook by permanently raising baseline spending for future years.

That federal program spending exploded to $624 billion in 2020-21 from $349 billion in 2019-20 is not surprising given the onetime expenses during the pandemic, and the $479 billion in spending in 2021-22 also included pandemic-related costs. But while some COVID spending was justifiable, much of the new spending was not. According to an analysis by Fraser Institute economists, $360 billion in pandemic-related spending, at least 25 per cent was unnecessary waste.

What about after the pandemic? In post-pandemic fiscal year 2022-23, program spending was $448 billion and debt interest expenses $35 billion, for a total of $483 billion. Compare that to what the Liberals initially planned in Budget 2018, the earliest fiscal plan to project out to 2022-23. Budget 2018, itself no model of fiscal responsibility, planned $350 billion in program spending and $33 billion in debt interest costs for a total of $383 billion (excluding a $3 billion “adjustment for risk”) in 2022-23.

So post-pandemic, the Liberals raised annual spending by nearly $100 billion versus their pre-pandemic fiscal plan. Comparing expected spending for 2023-24 with the plan in Budget 2019 shows a similar discrepancy. The 2023 Fall Economic Statement projects $450 billion in program spending and $496 billion in total spending versus $369 billion in program spending and $402 billion in total spending for 2023-24 in the Liberals’ 2019 fiscal plan (which itself contained material upward spending revisions from Budget 2018).

Speaking of the Fall Economic Statement, it also revised the spending trajectory upward from what the Liberals budgeted in the spring. In Budget 2023, the Liberals projected $2,395 billion in program spending over the next five fiscal years—or $2,630 billion including interest expenses. Because of new spending commitments and higher borrowing costs, five-year program spending is now expected to be $2,422 billion ($28 billion higher) and total spending $2,688 billion ($58 billion higher).

That’s a significant spending plan increase in only half a year. However, given the Trudeau government’s track record of missing its targets, don’t be surprised if actual spending comes in even higher than the latest forecast.

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

Carbon Tax

Trump targets Washington’s climate laws in recent executive order

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday targeting state-level climate policies – including Washington state’s Climate Commitment Act – calling them unconstitutional and harmful to domestic energy production

The executive order directs attorneys general to take action against state laws and policies that address climate change or involve environmental justice, carbon or greenhouse gas emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.

That includes Washington’s CCA that requires emitters to either reduce their carbon footprint or purchase “allowances” via a cap-and-trade program, which sets a limit on emissions from the state’s largest polluters: oil refineries, utilities, and manufacturers.

The CCA’s cap lowers over time with the goal of getting to carbon neutrality by 2050. While the program has generated billions in revenue, only 11% directly funds emissions-reducing projects, with the rest supports climate resilience, public health programs, and infrastructure planning, as previously reported by The Center Square,

According to a press release from The White House, the executive order targets these state laws and policies because they “burden the use of domestic energy resources and that are unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.”

Gov. Bob Ferguson does not believe the executive order has enough teeth to impact the state’s CCA.

“Voters upheld the Climate Commitment Act by a landslide, with 61% approval,” Ferguson told The Center Square in an email. “I am confident we will be able to preserve this and other important laws protecting our climate and investments in clean energy from this latest attack by the Trump administration.”

The Washington Department of Transportation told The Center Square it is working with federal and state partners to seek clarification about the implications and next steps of federal funding actions.

The Department of Ecology did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment.

If U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi does go after the CCA and other environmental policies, Washington officials may argue that it’s within the state’s authority to regulate emissions for public health.

For example, The federal Clean Air Act allows states, including Washington, to adopt more stringent motor vehicle emission standards than the federal minimums in certain circumstances.

The 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed states’ standing to sue over carbon emissions, ruling that greenhouse gases endanger public health and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

This wouldn’t be the first time the state defended its environmental laws against federal challenges from the Trump administration.

Washington also fought emissions rollbacks during the first Trump administration when Ferguson was state attorney general.

One key victory came in 2024, when Washington helped defend California’s right to set stricter vehicle emission standards.

While Ferguson has not commented on the executive order, New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham – co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance – issued a joint statement on Tuesday that states that the federal government cannot “unilaterally strip states’ independent constitutional authority.”

“We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans’ fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer,” the statement said.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Taxpayers urge federal party leaders to drop home sale reporting to CRA

Published on

Party leaders must clarify position on home equity tax

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on all party leaders to prove they’re against home equity taxes by pledging to immediately remove the Canada Revenue Agency reporting requirement on the sale of primary residences.

“Canadians rely on the sale of their homes to pay for their golden years,” said Carson Binda, CTF B.C. Director. “After the government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars flirting with home taxes, taxpayers need party leaders to prove they won’t tax our homes by removing the CRA reporting requirement.”

Right now, the profit you make from selling your home is exempt from the capital gains tax. However, in 2016, the federal government mandated that Canadians report the sale of their homes to the CRA, even though it’s tax exempt.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation also spent at least $450,000 to study and influence public opinion in favour of home equity taxes. The report recommended a home equity tax targeting the “housing wealth windfalls gained by many homeowners while they sleep and watch TV.”

“A home equity tax would hurt seniors saving for their golden years and make homes more expensive for younger generations,” Binda said. “If the federal government isn’t planning on imposing a home equity tax, then Canadians shouldn’t be forced to report the sale of their home to the CRA.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X