Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly—government budgets in 2024

Published

6 minute read

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.

Alberta

Alberta government must further restrain spending to stabilize provincial finances

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

This year, program spending will reach a projected $14,334 per Albertan, which is $1,603 more per person (inflation-adjusted) than the Smith government originally planned to spend this year as outlined in the 2022 mid-year budget update.

Despite recording a $4.3 billion surplus last year, Premier Danielle Smith remains committed to a new approach to Alberta finances that relies less heavily on resource revenue, which includes restraining spending levels below the rate of inflation and population growth. That’s a big step forward, but is it enough to stabilize Alberta’s boom and bust rollercoaster?

First, some background.

After nearly a decade and a half of routine budget deficits, Alberta swung to a budget surplus when resource revenue (which includes includes oil and gas royalties) skyrocketed from $3.1 billion in 2020/21 to $16.2 billion in 2021/22. In 2022/23, the government enjoyed the highest level of resource revenue on record and relatively high levels have continued in recent years. Correspondingly, Alberta’s surpluses have continued.

Alberta governments have a habit of increasing spending during times of high resource revenue, such as the province is currently experiencing, to levels that are unsustainable without incurring deficits when resource revenue inevitably declines. That’s why the Smith government’s commitment to spending restraint is an important one.

Unfortunately, however, due to the Smith government’s spending increases in previous years, this restraint won’t go as far in stabilizing provincial finances. Moreover, there are a number of limitations and exceptions to these new spending rules that may impede their effectiveness.

Consider that this year, program spending will reach a projected $14,334 per Albertan, which is $1,603 more per person (inflation-adjusted) than the Smith government originally planned to spend this year as outlined in the 2022 mid-year budget update.

As shown above, program spending (inflation-adjusted) will reach a projected $14,041 per person in 2025/26 and a projected $13,750 per person in 2026/27, which is equivalent to per-person increases of $1,571 and $1,538, respectively, compared to the original plan in 2022.

So while per-person (inflation-adjusted) spending is set to decline, which aligns with the Smith government’s commitment, this restraint is starting from a higher base level due to spending decisions thus far. That means more work needs to be done to rein in spending.

Indeed, for perspective, if the Smith government had simply stuck to its original plan, spending would be closely aligned with stable, more predictable sources of revenue. And ultimately, that’s the way to avoid deficits.

There’s also several limitations and exceptions for the government’s new spending rule. For example, the spending limit applies only to “operating expense,” which does not include longer-term spending, disaster and emergency assistance, spending related to dedicated revenue, or contingencies. As a result of various limits and exceptions, total program spending growth in 2023/24 exceeds inflation and population growth by 1.8 percentage points. Put simply, these limitations and exceptions add to the risk of budget deficits.

Sustainable finances have been impeded by increases in per person spending since 2022. So while the Smith government deserves credit for its commitment to restrain spending moving forward, Alberta’s fiscal challenges aren’t over.

Continue Reading

Economy

Feds spending $1.7 million pushing carbon tax on other countries

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Ryan Thorpe

The Trudeau government is dumping $1.7 million into a failed bid to get countries around the world to impose carbon taxes, according to access-to-information records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

“All Canadians need to do to know Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax push is an utter failure is look south of the border and see the United States’ refusal to impose their own tax,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “If Trudeau can’t even get our biggest trading partner and ally to impose a carbon tax, then why is he wasting money trying to push this unpopular tax around the world?”

The Trudeau government launched the Global Carbon Pricing Challenge at COP26 in 2021.

The program “aims to see 60 per cent of global GHG emissions covered by carbon pricing policies by 2030.” The program website notes “carbon pricing is most effective when more countries adopt it.”

But the results so far are dismal for the government.

Only 24 per cent of global emissions are currently covered by a carbon tax. About 70 per cent of countries do not have a national carbon tax, according to the World Bank.

Three of the four largest emitting countries – the U.S., Russia and India – currently do not have a national carbon tax, according to the World Bank.

“The [climate] community has largely moved into a different framework,” said John Podesta, a long-time Democratic strategist, when asked about whether the Biden administration would impose a carbon tax in the U.S.

Only 12 countries, including Kazakhstan and Chile, have signed onto the Global Carbon Pricing Challenge as “partners,” alongside the European Union. Côte d’Ivoire is listed as the lone “friend” of the program.

There are 195 countries in the world, according to the United Nations.

“This program is a complete failure that’s wasting taxpayers’ money,” Terrazzano said. “The carbon tax makes life in Canada more expensive, forces taxpayers to pay for more bureaucrats to administer it and now we learn we’re also paying for the government to push this failed policy on other countries.”

Records obtained by the CTF show the Trudeau government has spent $811,598 on salaries for bureaucrats, operations and maintenance, and guidance and control for the program since the 2021-22 fiscal year.

The government committed an additional $974,900 towards the creation of an independent secretariat to “support the GCPC.”

The federal government has also spent about $200 million administering the carbon tax in Canada since it was first imposed, according to separate records obtained by the CTF.

Canada’s “GDP is expected to be about $25 billion lower in 2030 due to carbon pricing than it would be otherwise,” according to the Globe and Mail.

“Trudeau should stop wasting money, stop punishing Canadians and scrap the carbon tax,” Terrazzano said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X