Economy
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly—government budgets in 2024
From the Fraser Institute
By Grady Munro and Jake Fuss
Research showed the federal government could balance its budget in two years by slowing spending growth, yet instead the government doubled down and increased spending well past its previous estimates (against the wishes of Canadians)
This fiscal year, most provinces (and the federal government) demonstrated irresponsible fiscal management, although some were better than others. Therefore, in the words of the 1966 film starring Clint Eastwood, let’s discuss The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Canadian government budgets in 2024.
Falling in the “good” category are Alberta and New Brunswick—the only two provinces planning to run a balanced budget in 2024/25, with Alberta forecasting a $367 million surplus and New Brunswick forecasting a $41 million surplus. Both provinces forecast surpluses until at least 2026/27, and expect net debt (total debt minus financial assets) as a share of the economy to decline in the years to come. However, what keeps these provinces from having a great budget is that both chose to further increase spending in the face of higher revenues, while failing to deliver much-needed tax relief.
Alberta in particular remains at risk of seeing future surpluses disappear, as the province relies on historically high resource revenues to fund its high spending. Should these volatile revenues decline, the province would return to operating at a deficit and growing its debt burden.
Provinces in the “bad” category include, but aren’t limited to, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. Largely due to quick growth in program spending that wipes out any revenue gains, both provinces expect deficits in 2023/24 and 2024/25 before planning to balance their budgets in 2025/26. The risks of unchecked spending growth are most salient in Saskatchewan, where just one year ago the province projected surpluses in both 2023/24 and 2024/25. And resulting from many years of deficits and debt accumulation, debt interest costs in Newfoundland and Labrador are expected to reach $2,123 per person in 2024/25, the highest in Canada.
Key governments among the “ugly” are the federal government, Ontario and British Columbia. Let’s take them one by one.
The federal government delivered a budget that continues the same failed approach that’s produced nearly a decade of stagnation in Canadian living standards. The Trudeau government plans to run a $39.8 billion deficit in 2024/25, followed by deficits of $20.0 billion or higher until at least 2028/29. Prior to the budget, research showed the federal government could balance its budget in two years by slowing spending growth, yet instead the government doubled down and increased spending well past its previous estimates (against the wishes of Canadians).
In addition to continuous spending increases and debt accumulation, the Trudeau government increased capital gains taxes on all businesses and many Canadians. Presented as a way to make the tax system more “fair” while generating $20 billion in revenue, in reality it is a harmful tax increase that is unlikely to generate the planned amount of revenues while simultaneously hindering economic growth and prosperity.
Similar to the federal government, in its 2024 budget Ontario’s Ford government simply doubled down on the same approach it’s taken in previous years. This “stay the course” fiscal plan added an average of $3.8 billion in new annual program spending (compared to last year’s budget) over the three years from 2023/24 to 2025/26. This new spending delays the province’s expected return to surpluses until 2026/27, and rather than run a $200 million surplus in 2024/25 the Ford government now plans to run a $9.8 billion deficit.
Importantly, the Ford government failed to deliver any meaningful tax relief for Ontarians in this budget, which once again breaks its promise to reduce personal income tax rates. Given that Ontarians face some of the highest personal income tax rates in North America, relief would help keep money in people’s pockets while also promoting economic growth.
Finally, the Eby government in B.C. tabled a budget that can be best described as a generational error in terms of the planned debt accumulation. The government plans to run a $7.9 billion deficit in 2024/25, followed by deficits of $7.8 billion and $6.4 billion in 2025/26 and 2026/27, respectively. In other words, the Eby government plans to run deficits in the coming years that are nearly as large or larger than those expected in Ontario, despite B.C. having a little over one-third of Ontario’s population.
Runaway spending drives these deficits and will contribute to a $55.1 billion (74.7 per cent) increase in provincial net debt from 2023/24 to 2026/27. This massive runup in debt will result in higher debt interest costs, which leaves less money available for services such as healthcare and education, or pro-growth tax relief for British Columbians.
By and large, governments across Canada demonstrated an irresponsible approach to managing public finances in this year’s round of budgets. While there were a couple of bright spots, the majority of provinces instead chose to increase spending, grow deficits and debt, and introduce little to no meaningful tax relief.
Authors:
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
By Ryan Thorpe
The cost of administering the federal carbon tax and rebate scheme has risen to $283 million since it was imposed in 2019, according to government records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
By 2030, the cost of administering the carbon tax is expected to total $796 million, according to the records.
“Not only does the carbon tax make our gas, heating and groceries more expensive, but taxpayers are also hit with a big bill to fund Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s battalion of carbon tax bureaucrats,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Trudeau should make life more affordable and slash the cost of the bureaucracy by scrapping the carbon tax.”
The government records were released in response to an order paper question from Conservative MP John Barlow (Foothills).
The carbon tax and rebate scheme cost taxpayers $84 million in 2023, according to the records.
There were 461 federal bureaucrats tasked with administering the carbon tax and rebate scheme last year, according to the records.
The CTF previously reported administering the carbon tax cost taxpayers $199 million between 2019 and 2022.
Projected costs for administering the carbon tax and rebate scheme between 2024 and 2030 are $513 million, according to the records.
That would bring total administration costs for the carbon tax and rebate scheme up to $796 million by 2030.
But the true hit to taxpayers is even higher, as the records do not include costs associated with the Fuel Charge Tax Credit for Farmers or the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses.
“It’s magic math to believe the feds can raise taxes, skim hundreds-of-millions off the top to hire hundreds of new bureaucrats and then somehow make everyone better off with rebates,” Terrazzano said.
The carbon tax will cost the average household up to $399 this year more than the rebates, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government’s independent, non-partisan budget watchdog.
The PBO also notes that, “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”
The government also charges its GST on top of the carbon tax. The PBO report shows this carbon tax-on-tax will cost taxpayers $400 million this year. That money isn’t rebated back to Canadians.
The carbon tax currently costs 17 cents per litre of gasoline, 21 cents per litre of diesel and 15 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.
By 2030, the carbon tax will cost 37 cents per litre of gasoline, 45 cents per litre of diesel and 32 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.
Economy
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
COP 29 is calling for over $1 trillion in annual climate reparations
- A major theme of COP 29 is that the world should set a “New Collective Quantified Goal” wherein successful nations pay poor nations over $1 trillion a year to 1) make up for climate-related harm and 2) build them new “green energy” economies. In other words, climate reparations.¹
- What would $1 trillion a year in climate reparations mean for you and your family?Assuming the money was paid equally by households considered high income (>$50 per day), your household would have to pay more than $5,000 a year in climate reparations taxes!²
- Climate reparations are based on two false assumptions:1. Free, wealthy countries, through their fossil fuel use, have made the world worse for poor countries.
2. The poor world’s main problem is dealing with climate change, which wealth transfers will help them with.
But free, fossil-fueled countries have made life better for poor countries
- Free, wealthy countries, through their fossil fuel use, have not made the world worse for poor countries—they have made it far, far better.Observe what has happened to global life expectancies and income as fossil fuel use has risen. Life has gotten much better for everyone.³
- The wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has improved life worldwide because by using fossil fuel energy to be incredibly productive, we have 1) made all kinds of goods cheaper and 2) been able to engage in life-saving aid, particularly in the realms of food, medicine, and sanitation.
- Without the historic use of fossil fuels by the wealthy world, there would be no super-productive agriculture to feed 8 billion humans, no satellite-based weather warning systems, etc. Most of the individuals in poor countries would not even be alive today.
Free, fossil-fueled countries have made the poor safer from climate
- The wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has been particularly beneficial in the realm of climate.Over the last 100 years, the death rate from climate-related disasters plummeted by 98% globally.
A big reason is millions of lives saved from drought via fossil-fueled crop transport.⁴
- The “climate reparations” movement ignores the fact that the wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has made life better, including safer from climate, in the poor world.This allows it to pretend that the poor world’s main problem is dealing with rising CO2 levels.
The poor world’s problem is poverty, not rising CO2 levels
- The poor world’s main problem is not rising CO2 levels, it is poverty—which is caused by lack of freedom, including the crucial freedom to use fossil fuels.Poverty makes everything worse, including the world’s massive natural climate danger and any danger from more CO2.
- While it’s not true that the wealthy world has increased climate danger in the poor world—we have reduced it—it is true that the poor world is more endangered by climate than the wealthy world is.The solution is for the poor to get rich. Which requires freedom and fossil fuels.⁵
Escaping poverty requires freedom and fossil fuels
- Every nation that has risen out of poverty has done so via pro-freedom policies—specifically, economic freedom.
That’s how resource-poor places like Singapore and Taiwan became prosperous. Resource-rich places like Congo have struggled due to lack of economic freedom.
- Even China, which is unfree in many ways (including insufficient protections against pollution) dramatically increased its standard of living via economic freedom—particularly in the realm of industrial development where it is now in many ways much freer than the US and Europe.
- A crucial freedom involved in rising prosperity has been the freedom to use fossil fuels.Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective source of energy, providing energy that’s low-cost, reliable, versatile, and scalable to billions of people in thousands of places.⁶
- Time and again nations have increased their prosperity, including their safety from climate, via economic freedom and fossil fuels.Observe the 7X increase in fossil fuel use in China and India over the past 4 decades, which enabled them to industrialize and prosper.⁷
- For the world’s poorest people to be more prosperous and safer from climate, they need more freedom and more fossil fuels.The “climate reparations” movement seeks to deny them both.
- The wealthy world should communicate to the poor world that economic freedom is the path to prosperity, and encourage the poor world to reform its cultural and political institutions to embrace economic freedom—including fossil fuel freedom.Our leaders are doing the opposite.
Climate reparations pay off dictators to take away fossil fuel freedom
- Instead of promoting economic freedom, including fossil fuel freedom, wealthy climate reparations advocates like Antonio Guterres are offering to entrench anti-freedom regimes by paying off their dictators and bureaucrats to eliminate fossil fuel freedom.This is disgusting.⁸
- The biggest victim of “climate reparations” will be the world’s poorest countries, whose dictators will be paid off to prevent the fossil fuel freedom that has allowed not just the US and Europe but also China and India to dramatically increase their prosperity.
- The biggest beneficiary of “climate reparations” will be China, which is already emitting more CO2 than the US and Europe combined. (Though less per capita.)While we flagellate and cripple ourselves, China will use fossil fuels in its quest to become the world’s superpower.⁹
- The second biggest beneficiary of “climate reparations” will be corrupt do-gooders who get to add anti-fossil-fuel strings to “reparations” dollars and dictate how it’s spent—which will surely include lots of dollars for unreliable solar panels and wind turbines made in China.
Leaders must reject reparations and champion fossil fuel freedom
- We need leaders in the US and Europe who proudly:1. Champion the free world’s use of fossil fuels as an enormous good for the world, including its climate safety.
2. Encourage the poor world to embrace economic freedom and fossil fuels.
Tell your Representative to do both.
Popular links
- EnergyTalkingPoints.com: Hundreds of concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.
- My new book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less.
- Speaking and media inquiries
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
1 Scientific American – COP27 Summit Yields ‘Historic Win’ for Climate Reparations but Falls Short on Emissions Reductions
Phys.org – COP29 climate finance deal ‘must cover loss and damage,’ experts urge
COP29 official website – Fund for responding to Loss and Damage ready to accept contributions
2 Global population was about 8.02 billion in 2023.
About 7% of world population are considered high income, which translates into about 562 million individuals. Considering 3 people per average household in high income households, this translates into about 187 million households.
Pew Research – Are you in the global middle class? Find out with our income calculator
$1 trillion per annum paid by 187 million households means the average household would pay about $5,300 per year.
3 Maddison Database 2010 at the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen
4 UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve
For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).
Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.
Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.
5 UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).
Population estimates come from World Bank Data.
6 Our World in Data – Energy Production and Consumption
7 BP – Statistical Review of World Energy
8 UN News – ‘Pay up or humanity will pay the price’, Guterres warns at COP29 climate summit
9 Our World in Data – Annual CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels, by world region
Alberta activates contingency mail delivery plan
“I know three families that have gone to Canada.”: Locals Say Haitians Are Hoofing It Out Of Springfield After Trump Win
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
ESG1 day ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Brownstone Institute2 days agoThe Most Devastating Report So Far
-
MAiD2 days agoOver 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day agoToronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
-
International1 day agoEuthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
-
armed forces17 hours agoJudge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
Addictions1 day agoBC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
-
Business2 days ago
Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million