New Prime Minister Carney’s Fiscal Math Doesn’t Add Up

For the first time in Canada’s history, the Prime Minister has never sought or won a democratic election in any parliament. Mark Carney’s victory to replace Justin Trudeau as the leader of the Liberal Party means he is now the Prime Minister. Carney’s resume and achievements make him one of the most accomplished prime ministers ever. Still, there are a number of basic questions about Carney’s fiscal and economic math that Canadians need to consider carefully as we enter an election.

Carney’s accomplishments should be recognized. He has a bachelor’s degree in economics from Harvard and both a masters and doctoral degrees in economics from Oxford University. He spent over a decade at Goldman Sachs, a leading US-based financial firm then left to take up senior positions at both the Bank of Canada and later the Department of Finance. He became the Governor of the Bank of Canada in 2007 and then the Governor of the Bank of England in 2012. After his tenure at the Bank of England, Carney took up a number of private sector posts including chairman at Brookfield Asset Management, a major Canadian company.

Despite these obvious accomplishments and a deep CV, Carney’s proposed fiscal policies pose a number of serious questions.

Carney self-characterizes as a pragmatist and someone who will bring the Liberal Party back to the political centre after having been pushed to the left by former prime minister Justin Trudeau. Even former prime minister Jean Chrétien, one of the country’s most electorally successful prime ministers called for the party to move back to the centre.

Specifically, Carney said he would “cap” the size of the federal government workforce and reduce federal spending through a review of program spending as was done in 1994-95. He also indicated that the operating budget would be balanced within three years. He criticized the current government for spending too much and not investing enough, and for missing spending targets and violating its own fiscal guardrails. The implication of all these policies is that the role of the federal government will be rolled back with reductions in spending and federal employment, and reducing regulations. In many ways, these policies mirror those of former prime minister Chrétien.

However, there are numerous statements by Carney that seem to contradict these policies, or at the very least, water them down significantly. Consider, for instance, that Carney has indicated there will be no cuts to transfers to provincial governments (19.8 per cent of budget spending), no reductions in the income-transfers to individuals and families (25.8 per cent), and the government doesn’t determine interest charges on its debt (another 9.7 per cent). So, Carney has already taken over half the federal budget off the table for reductions.

It’s not clear whether he would reduce what’s referred to as “Other Transfers” which includes support for EV programs and investment incentives. This represents 17.9 per cent of the current budget. And if you read any of Carney’s climate-related initiatives, it appears this category of spending will actually increase, not decrease. Moreover, Carney stated he won’t touch some transfers such as the national dental care and pharmacare programs.

The major remaining category of federal spending is “operating expenses”, which includes the costs of running more than 100 government departments, agencies and Crown corporations. It’s expected to reach $130.6 billion this year and represents 23.4 per cent of the federal budget. But again, Carney has only committed to “capping” the federal workforce despite significant growth since 2015 and then review programs. Unless he’s willing to actually reduce federal employment and/or challenge existing contracts with the civil service, it’s not clear how he can find meaningful savings in the short term.

Recall that the expected deficit this year is $42.2 billion and to balance the budget over the next three years, Carney needs to find roughly $30 billion in savings. (Some of the deficit reduction is expected to come from economic growth, which increases government revenues).

However, this ignores the pressure on the federal government to markedly and quickly increase defense spending. A recent analysis estimated that the federal government would have to increase defense spending in 2027-28 by $68.8 billion to meet its NATO commitment, which is what President Trump is demanding. This single measure of spending could materially derail the new prime minister’s commitment to a balanced budget within three years.

But Carney has complicated the nation’s finances by committing to separating operating spending from capital spending. The former are annual spending requirements like salaries and wages to federal employees, income transfers to people through programs like EI and Old Age Security, and transfers to the provinces for health and social programs. Carney has committed to balancing the revenues collected for these purposes against spending.

However, he wants to remove anything that is deemed an “investment” or “capital”. That means spending on infrastructure like roads and ports, defense spending on equipment, and energy projects.

While Carney has committed to only running a “small deficit” on such spending, the commitment is eerily similar to Trudeau’s commitment in 2015 to run “small deficits” for just “three years” and the budget will balance itself through economic growth. The total federal gross debt has increased from $1.1 trillion when Trudeau took office in 2015 to an estimated $2.3 trillion this year.

The clear risk is that a Carney government will simply reduce spending in the operating budget and move it to the capital budget, thus balancing the latter while still piling up government debt.

Clarity is required from the new prime minister with respect to: 1) What operating expenses does he plan to reduce (or perhaps more generally is open to reducing) over the next three years to reach a balanced operating budget? 2) What specific commitment is Carney making on defense spending over the next three years? 3) What current spending will the new prime minister move or potentially move from the budget to his new capital budget? And finally, 4) What measures will be taken if revenues don’t materialize as expected and/or spending increases more than planned to ensure a balanced operating budget in three years?

Until greater clarity and details are provided, it’s hard, even near impossible, to know the extent to which the new prime minister is pragmatically offering a plan for more sustainable government finances versus playing politics by promising everything to everyone.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #JakeFuss #MarkCarney feature JasonClemons MarkCarney'sMath

Up Next

Time to unplug Ottawa’s EV sales mandates

Don't Miss

Is Russia at War With Ukraine, or With the West?

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

Keynote address of Premier Danielle Smith at 2025 UCP AGM

COVID-19 / 1 hour ago

The dangers of mRNA vaccines explained by Dr. John Campbell

Food / 5 hours ago

Canada Still Serves Up Food Dyes The FDA Has Banned

Alberta

Net Zero goal is a fundamental flaw in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU

Published on November 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari

The challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass.

The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the federal and Alberta governments lays the groundwork for substantial energy projects and infrastructure development over the next two-and-a-half decades. It is by all accounts a step forward, though, there’s debate about how large and meaningful that step actually is. There is, however, a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the agreement: it’s commitment to net zero in Canada by 2050.

The first point of agreement in the MOU on the first page of text states: “Canada and Alberta remain committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” In practice, it’s incredibly difficult to offset emissions with tree planting or other projects that reduce “net” emissions, so the effect of committing to “net zero” by 2050 means that both governments agree that Canada should produce very close to zero actual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consider the massive changes in energy production, home heating, transportation and agriculture that would be needed to achieve this goal.

So, what’s wrong with Canada’s net zero 2050 and the larger United Nations’ global goal for the same?

Let’s first understand the global context of GHG reductions based on a recent study by internationally-recognized scholar Vaclav Smil. Two key insights from the study. First, despite trillions being spent plus international agreements and regulatory measures starting back in 1997 with the original Kyoto agreement, global fossil fuel consumption between then and 2023 increased by 55 per cent.

Second, fossil fuels as a share of total global energy declined from 86 per cent in 1997 to 82 per cent in 2022, again, despite trillions of dollars in spending plus regulatory requirements to force a transition away from fossil fuels to zero emission energies. The idea that globally we can achieve zero emissions over the next two-and-a-half decades is pure fantasy. Even if there is an historic technological breakthrough, it will take decades to actually transition to a new energy source(s).

Let’s now understand the Canada-specific context. A recent study examined all the measures introduced over the last decade as part of the national plan to reduce emissions to achieve net zero by 2050. The study concluded that significant economic costs would be imposed on Canadians by these measures: inflation-adjusted GDP would be 7 per cent lower, income per worker would be more than $8,000 lower and approximately 250,000 jobs would be lost. Moreover, these costs would not get Canada to net zero. The study concluded that only 70 per cent of the net zero emissions goal would be achieved despite these significant costs, which means even greater costs would be imposed on Canadians to fully achieve net zero.

It’s important to return to a global picture to fully understand why net zero makes no sense for Canada within a worldwide context. Using projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its latest World Energy Outlook, the current expectation is that in 2050, advanced countries including Canada and the other G7 countries will represent less than 25 per cent of global emissions. The developing world, which includes China, India, the entirety of Africa and much of South America, is estimated to represent at least 70 per cent of global emissions in 2050.

Simply put, the challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass. A globally-coordinated effort, which is really what the U.N. should be doing rather than fantasizing about net zero, would see industrial countries like Canada that are capable of increasing their energy production exporting more to these developing countries so that high-emitting energy sources are replaced by lower-emitting energy sources. This would actually reduce global GHGs while simultaneously stimulating economic growth.

Consider a recent study that calculated the implications of doubling natural gas production in Canada and exporting it to China to replace coal-fired power. The conclusion was that there would be a massive reduction in global GHGs equivalent to almost 90 per cent of Canada’s total annual emissions. In these types of substitution arrangements, the GHGs would increase in energy-producing countries like Canada but global GHGs would be reduced, which is the ultimate goal of not only the U.N. but also the Carney and Smith governments as per the MOU.

Finally, the agreement ignores a basic law of economics. The first lesson in the very first class of any economics program is that resources are limited. At any given point in time, we only have so much labour, raw materials, time, etc. In other words, when we choose to do one project, the real cost is foregoing the other projects that could have been undertaken. Economics is mostly about trying to understand how to maximize the use of limited resources.

The MOU requires massive, literally hundreds of billions of dollars to be used to create nuclear power, other zero-emitting power sources and transmission systems all in the name of being able to produce low or even zero-emitting oil and gas while also moving to towards net zero.

These resources cannot be used for other purposes and it’s impossible to imagine what alternative companies or industries would have been invested in. What we do know is that workers, entrepreneurs, businessowners and investors are not making these decisions. Rather, politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa and Edmonton are making these decisions but they won’t pay any price if they’re wrong. Canadians pay the price. Just consider the financial fiasco unfolding now with Ottawa, Ontario and Quebec’s subsidies (i.e. corporate welfare) for electric vehicle batteries.

Understanding the fundamentally flawed commitment to Canadian net zero rather than understanding a larger global context of GHG emissions lays at the heart of the recent MOU and unfortunately for Canadians will continue to guide flawed and expensive policies. Until we get the net zero policies right, we’re going to continue to spend enormous resources on projects with limited returns, costing all Canadians.

Alberta

Falling resource revenue fuels Alberta government’s red ink

Published on November 28, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

According to this week’s fiscal update, amid falling oil prices, the Alberta government will run a projected $6.4 billion budget deficit in 2025/26—higher than the $5.2 billion deficit projected earlier this year and a massive swing from the $8.3 billion surplus recorded in 2024/25.

Overall, that’s a $14.8 billion deterioration in Alberta’s budgetary balance year over year. Resource revenue, including oil and gas royalties, comprises 44.5 per cent of that decline, falling by a projected $6.6 billion.

Albertans shouldn’t be surprised—the good times never last forever. It’s all part of the boom-and-bust cycle where the Alberta government enjoys budget surpluses when resource revenue is high, but inevitably falls back into deficits when resource revenue declines. Indeed, if resource revenue was at the same level as last year, Alberta’s budget would be balanced.

Instead, the Alberta government will return to a period of debt accumulation with projected net debt (total debt minus financial assets) reaching $42.0 billion this fiscal year. That comes with real costs for Albertans in the form of high debt interest payments ($3.0 billion) and potentially higher taxes in the future. That’s why Albertans need a new path forward. The key? Saving during good times to prepare for the bad.

The Smith government has made some strides in this direction by saving a share of budget surpluses, recorded over the last few years, in the Heritage Fund (Alberta’s long-term savings fund). But long-term savings is different than a designated rainy-day account to deal with short-term volatility.

Here’s how it’d work. The provincial government should determine a stable amount of resource revenue to be included in the budget annually. Any resource revenue above that amount would be automatically deposited in the rainy-day account to be withdrawn to support the budget (i.e. maintain that stable amount) in years when resource revenue falls below that set amount.

It wouldn’t be Alberta’s first rainy-day account. Back in 2003, the province established the Alberta Sustainability Fund (ASF), which was intended to operate this way. Unfortunately, it was based in statutory law, which meant the Alberta government could unilaterally change the rules governing the fund. Consequently, by 2007 nearly all resource revenue was used for annual spending. The rainy-day account was eventually drained and eliminated entirely in 2013. This time, the government should make the fund’s rules constitutional, which would make them much more difficult to change or ignore in the future.

According to this week’s fiscal update, the Alberta government’s resource revenue rollercoaster has turned from boom to bust. A rainy-day account would improve predictability and stability in the future by mitigating the impact of volatile resource revenue on the budget.