Business
Feds spend $4.3 million printing out budget
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Ryan Thorpe
The average cost for each copy of the budget is $110.
Federal documents, including the budget, are routinely made available for free on government websites.
Here’s how the federal government could have saved money printing the budget:
It could have bought 1,000 top of the line, all-in-one printers at retail price.
Then it could have bought 10,000 multi-packs of colour ink.
Along with 106,000 reams of paper.
And then it could have assigned one of the 108,000 new bureaucrats hired under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to print out copies of the budget.
Or it could have bought more than 333,000 USB flash drives and handed out digital copies to anyone who wanted to read it.
And even after this epic office supply shopping spree, Ottawa would have saved a million dollars.
Instead, Ottawa blew $4.3 million on printing the federal budget since 2015.
In fact, the government continues to spend half-a-million dollars a year printing paper copies of the budget, more than a decade after authorizing the transition to digital-only publications, according to documents obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
“It’s 2024, presumably the government isn’t still using carrier pigeons, so it probably doesn’t need to spend half-a-million dollars printing paper copies of its budget every year,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Not only are taxpayers getting soaked by what’s in the budget, we’re also getting a six-figure tab just to print it out.”
On average, the federal government spends $482,000 annually printing out thousands of copies of its budget, despite the fact the government has been trumpeting its embrace of the digital economy for years.
The costliest year on record was 2023, when the Trudeau government spent $753,160 printing 4,200 copies of the federal budget, according to the records.
That was $443,370 more than the Conservatives spent in 2015, the last year in which the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper tabled a budget.
The least expensive year on record was 2021, when the government spent $215,434 printing copies of its budget.
Cost of printing the federal budget, 2015 to 2024, access-to-information records
|
Year |
Number of copies |
Cost |
|
2015 |
5,911 |
$309,790 |
|
2016 |
5,876 |
$490,334 |
|
2017 |
5,937 |
$553,804 |
|
2018 |
5,561 |
$655,645 |
|
2019 |
4,874 |
$457,793 |
|
2020 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
2021 |
1,599 |
$215,434 |
|
2022 |
3,035 |
$632,273 |
|
2023 |
4,200 |
$753,160 |
|
2024 |
2,225 |
$270,418 |
|
Total |
39,218 |
$4,338,651 |
Given the number of copies the government prints each year, the federal budget would constitute a best seller in the Canadian publishing industry, according to BookNet Canada.
The average cost for each copy of the budget is $110.
In 2012, the Harper government authorized federal departments to transition to online-only publications, estimating the move would save taxpayers $178 million annually.
Federal documents, including the budget, are routinely made available for free on government websites.
“The government proved in 2021 that it could bring printing costs down, so taxpayers expect that to happen every year moving forward,” Terrazzano said. “Printing some physical copies is understandable, but an average tab of half-a-million-dollars is silly.”
Since 2015, the federal government printed 39,218 physical copies of the budget.
According to online calculations, roughly 1,460 standard pine trees would have been cut down to produce that volume of paper.
The Trudeau government is more than 1.8 billion trees short of its promise to plant two billion trees by 2030.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
You’ve probably heard by now the blockbuster news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, one of the richest people to ever walk the planet, has had a change of heart on climate change.
For several decades Gates poured billions of dollars into the climate industrial complex.
Some conservatives have sniffed that Bill Gates has shifted his position on climate change because he and Microsoft have invested heavily in energy intensive data centers.
AI and robotics will triple our electric power needs over the next 15 years. And you can’t get that from windmills.
What Bill Gates has done is courageous and praiseworthy. It’s not many people of his stature that will admit that they were wrong. Al Gore certainly hasn’t. My wife says I never do.
Although I’ve only once met Bill Gates, I’ve read his latest statements on global warming. He still endorses the need for communal action (which won’t work), but he has sensibly disassociated himself from the increasingly radical and economically destructive dictates from the green movement. For that, the left has tossed him out of their tent as a “traitor.”
I wish to highlight several critical insights that should be the starting point for constructive debate that every clear-minded thinker on either side of the issue should embrace.
(1) It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate policies. This includes improving agriculture and health in poor countries.
(2) Countries should be encouraged to grow their economies even if that means a reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. Economic growth is essential to human progress.
(3) Although climate change will hurt poor people, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease.
I would add to these wise declarations two inconvenient truths: First: the solution to changing temperatures and weather patterns is technological progress. A far fewer percentage of people die of severe weather events today than 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago.
Second, energy is the master resource and to deny people reliable and affordable energy is to keep them poor and vulnerable – and this is inhumane.
If Bill Gates were to start directing even a small fraction of his foundation funds to ensuring everyone on the planet has access to electric power and safe drinking water, it would do more for humanity than all of the hundreds of billions that governments and foundations have devoted to climate programs that have failed to change the globe’s temperature.
Stephen Moore is a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
At Tesla’s Austin headquarters, investors backed Musk’s 12-step plan that ties his potential trillion-dollar payout to a series of aggressive financial and operational milestones, including raising the company’s valuation from roughly $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and selling one million humanoid robots within a decade. Musk hailed the outcome as a turning point for Tesla’s future.
“What we’re about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla but a whole new book,” Musk said, as The New York Times reported.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The decision cements investor confidence in Musk’s “moonshot” management style and reinforces the belief that Tesla’s success depends heavily on its founder and his leadership.
Tesla Annual meeting starting now
https://t.co/j1KHf3k6ch— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2025
“Those who claim the plan is ‘too large’ ignore the scale of ambition that has historically defined Tesla’s trajectory,” the Florida State Board of Administration said in a securities filing describing why it voted for Mr. Musk’s pay plan. “A company that went from near bankruptcy to global leadership in E.V.s and clean energy under similar frameworks has earned the right to use incentive models that reward moonshot performance.”
Investors like Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood defended Tesla’s decision, saying the plan aligns shareholder rewards with company performance.
“I do not understand why investors are voting against Elon’s pay package when they and their clients would benefit enormously if he and his incredible team meet such high goals,” Wood wrote on X.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment Management — one of Tesla’s largest shareholders — broke ranks, however, and voted against the pay plan, saying that the package was excessive.
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk,” the firm said.
The vote comes months after Musk wrapped up his short-lived government role under President Donald Trump. In February, Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team sparked a firestorm when they announced plans to eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development, drawing backlash from Democrats and prompting protests targeting Musk and his companies, including Tesla.
Back in May, Musk announced that his “scheduled time” leading DOGE had ended.
Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
Bizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves
Canada’s heavy oil finds new fans as global demand rises
Pro-freedom group warns Liberal bill could secretly cut off Canadians’ internet access
-
Business2 days agoCarney budget doubles down on Trudeau-era policies
-
espionage2 days agoU.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs
-
COVID-192 days agoCrown still working to put Lich and Barber in jail
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s Deficit Numbers Deserve Scrutiny After Trudeau’s Forecasting Failures
-
Business2 days agoCarney budget continues misguided ‘Build Canada Homes’ approach
-
International1 day agoKazakhstan joins Abraham Accords, Trump says more nations lining up for peace
-
armed forces20 hours agoIt’s time for Canada to remember, the heroes of Kapyong
-
Business2 days agoHere’s what pundits and analysts get wrong about the Carney government’s first budget