Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Spending sprees by governments across Canada help fuel inflation and high interest rates

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

While the prime minister and many premiers justified their high spending levels during the pandemic as merely a temporary development, the federal government and seven provincial governments still plan to run budget deficits this year

Earlier this year, premiers in Ontario, British Columbia, and Newfoundland and Labrador wrote  letters to Tiff Macklem, Governor of the Bank of Canada, cautioning against further interest rate hikes, citing the potential negative effects on residents including homeowners with mortgages. But instead of blaming the central bank, Canadian premiers—and the prime minister—should stop their spending sprees, which help fuel inflation and increase interest rates.

Indeed, when governments increase spending, particularly when financed by debt, they add more money to the economy and can help fuel inflation. And high rates of government spending put pressure on the Bank of Canada to maintain interest rates at current levels, or even hike the rate further, to counteract inflation. According to a recent report from Scotiabank, government spending has contributed significantly to higher interest rates in Canada, accounting for an estimated 42 per cent of the increase in the Bank of Canada’s rate since the first quarter of 2022.

Yet the spending sprees continue.

While the prime minister and many premiers justified their high spending levels during the pandemic as merely a temporary development, the federal government and seven provincial governments still plan to run budget deficits this year. Government spending across the country remains at elevated levels or, in some cases, even increased beyond pandemic levels.

Ontario is a prime example. Provincial program spending (total spending minus interest costs) will reach an estimated $193.0 billion in 2023/24—$24.0 billion more than at the peak of COVID. Debt interest costs have also grown due to debt accumulation and rising interest rates.

Despite a considerable increase in revenue over recent years, the Ford government had planned for a $1.3 billion deficit in its spring budget. By November, the government increased spending again and quadrupled the projected deficit to $5.6 billion.

Similarly, British Columbia outlined plans in February to increase program spending and run a $4.2 billion deficit while adding $13.1 billion in debt to the books this year. Just over a half-year later, the B.C. government increased spending again and the deficit was revised to $5.6 billion with debt rising by $14.0 billion instead of $13.1 billion.

Prime Minister Trudeau and his government followed a similar path. According to the recent federal fiscal update, between 2024/25 and 2027/28, the government has increased projected spending by $30.7 billion more than previously forecasted.

According to projections, only two provinces (Alberta and New Brunswick) will run budget surpluses this year, but in Alberta this is largely due to elevated resource revenues stemming from high commodity prices rather than any significant spending restraint. If resource revenues declined to historical average levels, the Smith government in Alberta would likely run deficits similar to other provinces.

Simply put, the excessive spending habits of many premiers and the prime minister are a big reason why interest rates have climbed and inflation remains sticky.

If Canadian politicians want to help tame inflation and bring down interest rates, they should look in the mirror for solutions and show leadership. Complaining about elevated interest rates helps no one, but ensuring fiscal policy is rowing in the same direction as monetary policy would be a good start.

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

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Published on

logo

By

Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.

When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.
Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.
Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.
The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.
It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”
The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”
Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.
Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.
The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”
This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.
There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.
They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.
The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.
Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”
In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.
The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.
The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”
The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.
Google is yet to comment on the filing.
Reclaim The Net is reader-supported. Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Continue Reading

Trending

X