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

Canada’s economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the ‘green’ economy

Business / 4 hours ago

Canadians paid $90 billion in government debt interest in 2024/25

Alberta / 6 hours ago

From Underdog to Top Broodmare

Business

Canada’s economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the ‘green’ economy

Published on October 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

There are ostensibly two approaches to economic growth from a government policy perspective. The first is to create the best environment possible for entrepreneurs, business owners and investors by ensuring effective government that only does what’s needed, maintains competitive taxes and reasonable regulations. It doesn’t try to pick winners and losers but rather introduces policies to create a positive environment for all businesses to succeed.

The alternative is for the government to take an active role in picking winners and losers through taxes, spending and regulations. The idea here is that a government can promote certain companies and industries (as part of a larger “industrial policy”) better than allowing the market—that is, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and investors—to make those decisions.

It’s never purely one or the other but governments tend to generally favour one approach. The Trudeau era represented a marked break from the consensus that existed for more than two decades prior. Trudeau’s Ottawa introduced a series of tax measures, spending initiatives and regulations to actively constrain the traditional energy sector while promoting what the government termed the “green” economy.

The scope and cost of the policies introduced to actively pick winners and losers is hard to imagine given its breadth. Direct spending on the “green” economy by the federal government increased from $600 million the year before Trudeau took office (2014/15) to $23.0 billion last year (2024/25).

Ottawa introduced regulations to make it harder to build traditional energy projects (Bill C-69), banned tankers carrying Canadian oil from the northwest coast of British Columbia (Bill C-48), proposed an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, cancelled pipeline developments, mandated almost all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2035, imposed new homebuilding regulations for energy efficiency, changed fuel standards, and the list goes on and on.

Despite the mountain of federal spending and regulations, which were augmented by additional spending and regulations by various provincial governments, the Canadian economy has not been transformed over the last decade, but we have suffered marked economic costs.

Consider the share of the total economy in 2014 linked with the “green” sector, a term used by Statistics Canada in its measurement of economic output, was 3.1 per cent. In 2023, the green economy represented 3.6 per cent of the Canadian economy, not even a full one-percentage point increase despite the spending and regulating.

And Ottawa’s initiatives did not deliver the green jobs promised. From 2014 to 2023, only 68,000 jobs were created in the entire green sector, and the sector now represents less than 2 per cent of total employment.

Canada’s economic performance cratered in line with this new approach to economic growth. Simply put, rather than delivering the promised prosperity, it delivered economic stagnation. Consider that Canadian living standards, as measured by per-person GDP, were lower as of the second quarter of 2025 compared to six years ago. In other words, we’re poorer today than we were six years ago. In contrast, U.S. per-person GDP grew by 11.0 per cent during the same period.

Median wages (midpoint where half of individuals earn more, and half earn less) in every Canadian province are now lower than comparable median wages in every U.S. state. Read that again—our richest provinces now have lower median wages than the poorest U.S. states.

A significant part of the explanation for Canada’s poor performance is the collapse of private business investment. Simply put, businesses didn’t invest much in Canada, particularly when compared to the United States, and this was all pre-Trump tariffs. Canada’s fundamentals and the general business environment were simply not conducive to private-sector investment.

These results stand in stark contrast to the prosperity enjoyed by Canadians during the Chrétien to Harper years when the focus wasn’t on Ottawa picking winners and losers but rather trying to establish the most competitive environment possible to attract and retain entrepreneurs, businesses, investors and high-skilled professionals. The policies that dominated this period are the antithesis of those in place now: balanced budgets, smaller but more effective government spending, lower and competitive taxes, and smart regulations.

As the Carney government prepares to present its first budget to the Canadian people, many questions remain about whether there will be a genuine break from the policies of the Trudeau government or whether it will simply be the same old same old but dressed up in new language and fancy terms. History clearly tells us that when governments try to pick winners and losers, the strategy doesn’t lead to prosperity but rather stagnation. Let’s all hope our new prime minister knows his history and has learned its lessons.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Business

Canadians paid $90 billion in government debt interest in 2024/25

Published on October 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss, Tegan Hill and William Dunstan

Next week, the Carney government will table its long-awaited first budget. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Mark Carney launched a federal spending review to find $25 billion in savings by 2028. Even if the government meets this goal, it won’t be enough to eliminate the federal deficit—projected to reach as high as $92.2 billion in 2025/26—and start paying down debt. That means a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars will continue to flow towards federal debt interest payments, rather than programs and services or tax relief for Canadians.

When a government spends more than it raises in revenue and runs a budget deficit, it accumulates debt. As of 2024/25, the federal and provincial governments will have accumulated a total projected $2.3 trillion in combined net debt (total debt minus financial assets).

Of course, like households, governments must pay interest on their debt. According to our recent study, the provinces and federal government expect to spend a combined $92.5 billion on debt interest payments in 2024/25.

And like any government spending, taxpayers fund these debt interest payments. The difference is that instead of funding important programs, such as health care, these taxpayer dollars will finance government debt. This is the cost of deficit spending.

How much do Canadians pay each year in government debt interest costs? On a per-person basis, combined provincial and federal debt interest costs in 2024/25 are expected to range from $1,937 in Alberta to $3,432 in Newfoundland and Labrador. These figures represent provincial debt interest costs, plus the federal portion allocated to each province based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their share of Canada’s population.

For perspective, it’s helpful to compare debt interest payments to other budget items. For instance, the federal government estimates that in 2024/25 it will spend more on debt interest costs ($53.8 billion) than on child-care benefits ($35.1 billion) or the Canada Health Transfer ($52.1 billion), which supports provincial health-care systems.

Provincial governments too spend more money on interest payments than on large programs. For example, in 2024/25, Ontario expects to spend more on debt interest payments ($15.2 billion) than on post-secondary education ($14.2 billion). That same year, British Columbia expects to spend more on debt interest payments ($4.4 billion) than on child welfare ($4.3 billion).

Unlike other forms of spending, governments cannot simply decide to spend less on debt interest payments in a given year. To lower their debt interest payments, governments must rein in spending and eliminate deficits so they can start to pay down debt.

Unfortunately, most governments in Canada are doing the opposite. All but one province (Saskatchewan) plans to run a deficit in 2025/26 while the federal deficit could exceed $90 billion.

To stop racking up debt, governments must balance their budgets. By spending less today, governments can ensure that a larger share of tax dollars go towards programs or tax relief to benefit Canadians rather than simply financing government debt.