Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Spending restraint: Roadmap to a balanced budget

Published

1 year ago

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

A Case for Spending Restraint: How the Federal Government Can Balance the Budget

By Grady Munro and Jake Fuss

Since 2015, there has been a deterioration in the federal government’s fiscal situation. Annual
nominal program spending has increased an estimated $193.6 billion since 2014/15; adjusted for
inflation and population growth this represents an extra $2,330 per person. Prior to the COVID
pandemic, spending increased faster than population, inflation, and other relevant economic
indicators. These spending increases have resulted in a string of large budgetary deficits that have
contributed to an estimated $941.9 billion increase in gross federal debt from 2014/15 to 2023/24.
This accumulation of debt, along with recent hikes in interest rates, has raised the cost of interest
on the federal debt to one of the largest budget expense items.

Moving forward, the federal government plans to slow nominal spending growth, which will keep inflation-adjusted, per-person spending relatively constant to 2026/27. Despite this, the federal government will continue running budget deficits and accumulating debt. It is also uncertain whether the federal government’s current estimates are truly reliable as the estimates do not incorporate expected spending on pharmacare or the level of defence spending to meet Canada’s NATO commitment. Moreover, the federal government’s track record of exceeding previous spending commitments calls into question the reliability of the current spending targets. Therefore, it is clear the federal government is not implementing the level of spending restraint necessary to reverse course towards a stable fiscal situation.

An approach to federal finances that continues to run budget deficits and accumulate debt is economically harmful to both current and future generations of Canadians. Research shows that significant increases in debt-financed spending harm economic growth by reducing capital accumulation and labour productivity.

Furthermore, accumulating debt today increases the tax burden on future generations of Canadians, as they will be responsible for paying off this debt. Despite these effects, the federal government plans to continue running deficits and accumulating debt for the foreseeable future.

This need not be the case. The federal government can undertake decisive spending reform starting in 2024— similar to the reform by the Chrétien government in the 1990s—that balances the budget within a year or two. The federal government could balance the budget in 2026/27 by limiting annual growth in nominal program spending to 0.3% for two years. This would result in a 5.9% reduction in real per-person spending. Alternatively, the budget could be balanced in 2025/26 if the federal government reduces spending 4.3% for one year; the next year, 2026/27, would see a budgetary surplus. In this scenario, inflation-adjusted per-person spending would decline by 7.5%. Key trade-offs between the two approaches include the extent of the spending reform and the speed of the return to balanced budgets. Balancing the budget in one year, as opposed to two years, would
result in $30.0 billion less debt accumulated by 2026/27.

Though it is beyond the scope of this study to discuss how such spending reforms should be implemented, there are three areas that might be considered for reform. Business subsidies are a significant expense, yet research suggests they have little if any economic benefit, and may actually harm economic growth when governments pick winners and losers in a free market. Reviewing business subsidies might provide opportunities to find savings. Aligning government-sector wages
with those in the private sector would also provide savings, as government workers in Canada currently enjoy an 8.5% wage premium (on average) relative to comparable private-sector workers. Finally, studies show that government fiscal waste can be significant. From 1988 to 2013, more than 600 government failures cost the federal government between $158.3 billion and $197.1 billion. Moreover, more than 25% of all federal COVID spending was wasteful. Addressing inefficiencies within government might also reveal savings.

  • Canada has seen a deterioration in the federal government’s fiscal situation since 2015. A distinct lack of spending restraint has resulted in a string of large budget deficits, which have contributed to rising government debt and debt interest costs.
  • Despite current fiscal plans promising more of the same, the federal government could implement decisive spending reform starting in 2024/25, similar to reforms implemented in the 1990s, and balance the budget within one or two years.
  • To balance the budget by 2026/27, the federal government would need to limit growth in annual nominal program spending to 0.3 percent for two years. This would translate to a 5.9 percent reduction in inflation-adjusted, per-person spending.
  • Alternatively, the federal government could balance the budget in one year, by 2025/26, by reducing nominal program spending by 4.3 percent. Adjusted for inflation and population, this would be a 7.5 percent decrease. In 2026/27, the federal government could then record a $8.2 billion surplus even while increasing spending from the previous year.
  • While this study does not provide an in-depth analysis of where potential savings should be found, research highlights three potential areas that could be targeted for spending reform: corporate welfare, aligning government-sector wages with those in the private sector, or eliminating government fiscal waste.

A Case for Spending Restraint in Canada: How the Federal Government Can Balance the Budget

Authors:

Grady Munro
Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Jake Fuss
Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Click here to read the full report

Before Post

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
International / 2 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Alberta / 4 hours ago

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Energy / 5 hours ago

Why are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?

Business

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X