Connect with us

Business

Federal government could save $10.7 billion this fiscal year by eliminating eight ineffective spending programs

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The federal government could save up to $10.7 billion this fiscal year by ending eight ineffective spending programs, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

ā€œCanadaā€™s federal finances have deteriorated markedly over the last decade, largely due to a rapid run up in spending, deficits and debt,ā€ said Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute.

ā€œAs previous governments have done before, a comprehensive line-by-line review of Ottawaā€™s spending is required to identify those programs or initiatives that are not fulfilling their purpose, or are not providing good value for tax dollars.ā€

The study, Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions to Federal Government Spending, highlights eight federal programs where government spending
does not appear to be accomplishing its stated goals, or where government funding is unnecessary:

– $1.5 billion ā€” Regional Development Agencies
– $1.7 billion ā€” Federal support for journalism
– $587.6 million ā€” Federal support for electric vehicle production and purchases
– $340.0 million ā€” Two Billion Trees program
– $3.5 billion ā€” Canada Infrastructure Bank
– $2.4 billion ā€” Strategic Innovation Fund
– $202.3 million ā€” Global Innovation Clusters
– $530.0 million ā€” Green Municipal Fund

Critically, eliminating these eight programs could reduce federal government spending by $10.7 billion in 2024-25: ā€œThough just a starting point, a savings of $10.7 billion would meaningfully improve federal finances and help Ottawa put the countryā€™s finances back on a stable footing,ā€ Fuss said.

This study is part of a larger series of collected essays on federal policy reforms, Federal Blueprint for Prosperity, edited by Fraser Institute Senior Fellows Jock Finlayson and Lawrence Schembri.

The essay series, also released today, details federal policy reforms in health care, environmental and energy regulations, tax policy, immigration, housing, trade, etc. to increase prosperity for Canadians and improve living standards.

To learn more and to read the entire collected essay series, visit www.fraserinstitute.org.

 

Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions in Federal Government Spending

  • A marked deterioration in the state of Canadaā€™s finances, driven largely by rapidly increasing spending, has created a need to review federal government spending to identify programs that are inefficient and/or ineffective. This study highlights eight spending areas that have easily identifiable problems, and should be a starting point for a more comprehensive review.
  • The eight spending areas identified are: Regional Development Agencies, Government Supports for Journalism, Federal Support for Electric Vehicle Production and Purchases, the 2 Billion Trees Program, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Strategic Innovation Fund, the Global Innovation Clusters, and the Green Municipal Fund.
  • These programs represent instances where government spending does not appear to be accomplishing the stated goals, and where government involvement is questionable.
  • For instance, despite research suggesting business subsidies do little to promote widespread economic growth, the seven regional development agencies report vague objectives and results that make it difficult for government officials or Parliamentarians to assess the efficacy of the spending.
  • Since the Canada Infrastructure Bank was first established in 2017, it has approved up to $13.2 billion in investments across 76 projects, but only two projects have been completed. These projects represent just $93.2 million (or 0.71 percent) of the total approved investments.
  • The federal government could save $10.7 billion in 2024ā€“25 alone if it eliminated spending in these eight areas. This amount would be impactful in improving the state of Canadaā€™s finances, and more savings could be achieved through a comprehensive review of all spending.

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

Business

Musk vs. the bureaucracy vs. Congress: Who has the power to cut spending?

Published on

From The Center Square

ByĀ 

The Trump administrationā€™s all-of-Washington shake-up has resulted inĀ hundredsĀ of lawsuits and cries of a “constitutional crisis,” with Elon Muskā€™s Department of Government Efficiency at the heart of many complaints from Democrats.

Critics of the department say its on shaky legal footing and have questioned whether Muskā€™s role violates the U.S. Constitution, as higher-ranking government officials often must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The White House has maintained that, despite Musk being the public face of the department and seemingly directing its activities, he is only a “special government employee.” As such, he isnā€™t subject to a Senate confirmation.

But legal experts disagree on Musk’s role and authority within the federal government.

The Pacific Legal Foundationā€™s Michael Poon works for the foundation’s separation of powers practice group. Now that the White House has revealed the identity of the DOGEā€™s administrator asĀ Amy Gleason, a healthcare technology executive who served under Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Poon likened Muskā€™s role to that of a “DOGE czar,” or even the presidentā€™s chief of staff ā€“ neither of which are senate-confirmed positions. Because Musk isnā€™t the departmentā€™s administrator, he doesnā€™t seem to have any formal authority, according to Poon.

ā€œAgency heads have the power to ignore him because he doesnā€™t actually have formal power himself,ā€ Poon continued, ā€œbut they probably listen because Musk is understood to have the presidentā€™s confidence,ā€ similar to other positions Poon mentioned, including Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who also isn’t Senate confirmed but works side by side with the Department of Homeland Security. whose secretary, Kristi Noem, is Senate-confirmed.

ā€œThis kind of arrangement makes Musk informally powerful, but the power comes from the expectation that the president would back him, not any power that is, sort of, inherent in his position,ā€ Poon said.

While Poon doesnā€™t think Muskā€™s role violates any constitutional requirements, he does appreciate the sudden interest the public is taking in the role of unelected federal officials in general. But since their function in the federal government has developed over many decades, itā€™s unlikely that anything resulting from the DOGE-Musk controversy would go very far in solving the problem.

ā€œItā€™s appropriate to be scrutinizing of unelected officials and the power that they wield,ā€ Poon said. ā€œBut itā€™s a concern that has been put to the side for the last hundred years, over which both major parties have worked to weaken these protections against unelected officials.ā€

If Americans want less power and more guardrails for unelected officials, it will take time to achieve, according to Poon.

ā€œI donā€™t think that, as the current case law stands, Elon Muskā€™s role contravenes the Constitution, but if we think those protections should be strengthenedā€¦Ā  thatā€™s something that takes a concerted effort and it canā€™t vary depending on who is in control of the executive branch,ā€ Poon said.

Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Instituteā€™s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, finds the lack of transparency around DOGE and Muskā€™s role troubling.

ā€œI think thereā€™s very serious concerns about what exactly is happening with DOGE,ā€ Berry said.

A lot of concerns with DOGE have to do with the Appointments Clause, which is the basis for Senate confirmations of presidential appointees and creates a system of accountability.

ā€œThe Appointments Clause of the Constitution says that the finalĀ decision makerĀ on a lot of issues needs to be either the president or someone appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate,ā€ Berry said. ā€œWhen the public perception is that Musk or anyone whoā€™s not Senate-confirmed is making these decisions, you donā€™t have any elected person to blame.ā€

Even if the administration were to eventually reveal that the president approved all of Muskā€™s actions, the lack of transparency now is problematic for the public, according to Berry.

As for questions about Trumpā€™s authority to establish DOGE and Muskā€™s role within it, President of the Liberty Justice Center Jacob Huebert thinks theyā€™re unfounded.

ā€œArticle II of the Constitution gives all executive power to the president,ā€ Huebert said. ā€œAs long as the president has ultimate decision-making authority here, I donā€™t see any problem with that.ā€

He applauds what he sees as Trumpā€™s revision of the executive branch, bringing it closer to what it was intended to be.

ā€œItā€™s the president deciding how the executive branch is going to run, which is very much the opposite of how it has long been run, where the bureaucracy is kind of leading things even though the bureaucracy doesnā€™t have any constitutional authority whatsoever,ā€ Huebert said.

As far as Trumpā€™s efforts to cut government spending through DOGE, Huebertā€™s unsure how it will play out, though he thinks itā€™s a valiant aim. The Constitution grants Congress power over the governmentā€™s purse, and some lawsuits are challenging the presidentā€™s attempts to cut spending that Congress has already appropriated. Even if DOGE were able to get federal agencies to cut their budgets and the courts ruled in their favor, Huebert thinks it will be difficult to motivate Congress to pass significantly smaller budgets.

ā€œThat to me seems like the biggest challenge for DOGE if part of the goal is to cut spending because Congress really likes to spend, including most of the Republicans in Congress, and the reasons that theyā€™ve had to spend so much money have not gone away,ā€ Huebert said. ā€œAll the incentives to spend, or most of them, are still there. So I donā€™t know how Trump or Elon Musk, if they want to bring it under control, can bring it under control.ā€

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk: ā€˜Iā€™m getting a lot of death threatsā€™ due to DOGE

Published on

From the LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

The work of DOGE is ā€˜not an optional thing. It is an essential thing,ā€™ Elon Musk said. ā€˜If we donā€™t do this, America will go bankrupt.ā€™

At the Trump administrationā€™s first cabinet meeting, Elon MuskĀ saidĀ that heā€™s ā€œtaking a lot of flakā€ for his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), adding, ā€œIā€™m getting a lot of death threats.ā€Ā Ā 

 

ā€œWe simply canā€™t sustain as a country a two trillion-dollar deficit,ā€ said Musk, explaining why the work of DOGE is so important to the functioning of the country.Ā Ā 

ā€œJust the interest on the national debt now exceeds Defense Department spending,ā€ said the tech billionaire. ā€œWe spend a lot on the Defense Department, but weā€™re spending over a trillion dollars on interest. If this continues, the country will become de facto bankrupt.ā€Ā 

Only DOGE can save the US from bankruptcyĀ 

Musk said that the work of DOGE is ā€œnot an optional thing. It is an essential thing.ā€Ā 

ā€œIf we donā€™t do this, America will go bankrupt,ā€ he emphasized. ā€œThatā€™s why it has to be done.ā€Ā 

ā€œIā€™m confident at this point ā€¦ that we can find a trillion dollars in savings,ā€ he said. ā€œThat would be roughly 15 percent of the seven trillion-dollar budget.ā€Ā 

ā€œAnd obviously that can only be done with the support of everyone in this room,ā€ he said to the cabinet secretaries. ā€œAnd I would like to thank everyone for your support.ā€Ā 

ā€œDOGE is a support function for the president and for the agencies departments to help achieve those savings and to effectively find 15 percent reduction in fraud and waste,ā€ he explained.Ā Ā Ā 

Continue Reading

Trending

X