Connect with us

Business

Federal government keeps violating self-imposed fiscal rules

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

By continually violating its own fiscal anchor, the Trudeau government has rendered the rule meaningless and abandoned the discipline it’s meant to impose.

Last week, after tabling the Trudeau government’s fall fiscal update, which includes evermore spending and borrowing, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland called it a “responsible fiscal plan.” Upon closer scrutiny, however, the finance minister has once again abandoned her self-imposed fiscal rules and continues to spend, borrow and tax at unsustainable levels.

Fiscal rules, also known as “fiscal anchors,” help guide policy on government spending, taxes and borrowing. They’re supposed to prevent a deterioration in government finances, with an eye on ensuring debt is sustainable for future generations.

After taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government announced its fiscal anchor—balance the budget by fiscal year 2019-20. When the government quickly realized it would not achieve this goal, it dropped a new fiscal anchor—reduce Canada’s debt-to-GDP ratio, a common measure of a country’s ability to pay back its debt. However, the 2019 fall fiscal update revealed the government had violated its new fiscal anchor before the pandemic, as debt-to-GDP ticked up slightly from 30.8 to 31.0 per cent. In other words, federal debt grew slightly faster than the Canadian economy.

Then the government spent and borrowed hundreds of billions during COVID, driving debt-to-GDP up to 47.2 per cent in 2020-21. Afterwards, as the economy rebounded, the ratio levelled off and stabilized around 42 per cent in 2022-23.

Last week, Minister Freeland indicated the government will violate its own fiscal anchor at least two more times—debt-to-GDP will increase to 42.4 per cent in 2023-24 then climb higher in 2024-25. Again, federal debt is growing faster than the Canadian economy.

By continually violating its own fiscal anchor, the Trudeau government has rendered the rule meaningless and abandoned the discipline it’s meant to impose. There’s little direction for federal finances and almost nothing to ensure the government is disciplined with spending and debt growth. In such a scenario, politics—not responsible fiscal principles—governs decisions over the public purse.

So, what are the consequences to this wholly undisciplined approach to fiscal policy?

All else equal, a rising debt-to-GDP ratio means that debt interest costs will rise relative to the size of the economy. Spending on rising debt interest costs will divert money away from government programs and/or crowd out any fiscal room for tax relief for Canadian families.

And debt interest costs are rising rapidly. In 2020/21, when interest rates were at historic lows, the federal government spent $20.4 billion on debt interest. This year, interest costs will reach a projected $46.5 billion, more than double what they were three years ago. And will hit a projected $60.7 billion by 2028/29—double what the government plans to spend on employment insurance benefits that year.

Finally, according to last week’s fiscal update, debt-to-GDP will begin to decline after 2024/25, but this should be taken with a huge grain of salt since this government has consistently increased spending and debt beyond its original projections. And there’s nothing preventing the government from scrapping these commitments like they have with all their other fiscal anchors. Given the government’s clear preference for spending financed by borrowing, our debt-to-GDP ratio will likely continue to grow.

Unfortunately, there are few signs the Trudeau government will transform into a responsible steward of public finances and take meaningful steps to control debt and debt interest costs. And of course, Canadian taxpayers will pay the price.

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

Business

Cutting Red Tape Could Help Solve Canada’s Doctor Crisis

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Doctors waste millions of hours on useless admin. It’s enough to end Canada’s doctor shortage. Ian Madsen says slashing red tape, not just recruiting, is the fastest fix for the clogged system.

Doctors spend more time on paperwork than on patients and that’s fueling Canada’s health care wait lists

Canada doesn’t just lack doctors—it squanders the ones it has. Mountains of paperwork and pointless admin chew up tens of millions of physician hours every year, time that could erase the so-called shortage and slash wait lists if freed for patient care.

Recruiting more doctors helps, but the fastest cure for our sick system is cutting the bureaucracy that strangles the ones already here.

The Canadian Medical Association found that unnecessary non-patient work consumes millions of hours annually. That’s the equivalent of 50.5 million patient visits, enough to give every Canadian at least one appointment and likely erase the physician shortage. Meanwhile, the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimates more than six million Canadians don’t even have a family doctor. That’s roughly one in six of us.

And it’s not just patients who feel the shortage—doctors themselves are paying the price. Endless forms don’t just waste time; they drive doctors out of the profession. Burned out and frustrated, many cut their hours or leave entirely. And the foreign doctors that health authorities are trying to recruit? They might think twice once they discover how much time Canadian physicians spend on paperwork that adds nothing to patient care.

But freeing doctors from forms isn’t as simple as shredding them. Someone has to build systems that reduce, rather than add to, the workload. And that’s where things get tricky. Trimming red tape usually means more Information Technology (IT), and big software projects have a well-earned reputation for spiralling in cost.

Bent Flyvbjerg, the global guru of project disasters, and his colleagues examined more than 5,000 IT projects in a 2022 study. They found outcomes didn’t follow a neat bell curve but a “power-law” distribution, meaning costs don’t just rise steadily, they explode in a fat tail of nasty surprises as variables multiply.

Oxford University and McKinsey offered equally bleak news. Their joint study concluded: “On average, large IT projects run 45 per cent over budget and seven per cent over time while delivering 56 per cent less value than predicted.” If that sounds familiar, it should. Canada’s Phoenix federal payroll fiasco—the payroll software introduced by Ottawa that left tens of thousands of federal workers underpaid or unpaid—is a cautionary tale etched into the national memory.

The lesson isn’t to avoid technology, but to get it right. Canada can’t sidestep the digital route. The question is whether we adapt what others have built or design our own. One option is borrowing from the U.S. or U.K., where electronic health record (EHR) systems (the digital patient files used by doctors and hospitals) are already in place. Both countries have had headaches with their systems, thanks to legal and regulatory differences. But there are signs of progress.

The U.K. is experimenting with artificial intelligence to lighten the administrative load, and a joint U.K.-U.S. study gives a glimpse of what’s possible:

“… AI technologies such as Robotic Process Automation (RPA), predictive analytics, and Natural Language Processing (NLP) are transforming health care administration. RPA and AI-driven software applications are revolutionizing health care administration by automating routine tasks such as appointment scheduling, billing, and documentation. By handling repetitive, rule-based tasks with speed and accuracy, these technologies minimize errors, reduce administrative burden, and enhance overall operational efficiency.”

For patients, that could mean fewer missed referrals, faster follow-up calls and less time waiting for paperwork to clear before treatment. Still, even the best tools come with limits. Systems differ, and customization will drive up costs. But medicine is medicine, and AI tools can bridge more gaps than you might think.

Run the math. If each “freed” patient visit is worth just $20—a conservative figure for the value of a basic appointment—the payoff could hit $1 billion in a single year.

Updating costs would continue, but that’s still cheap compared to the human and financial toll of endless wait lists. Cost-sharing between provinces, Ottawa, municipalities and even doctors themselves could spread the risk. Competitive bidding, with honest budgets and realistic timelines, is non-negotiable if we want to dodge another Phoenix-sized fiasco.

The alternative—clinging to our current dysfunctional patchwork of physician information systems—isn’t really an option. It means more frustrated doctors walking away, fewer new ones coming in, and Canadians left to languish on wait lists that grow ever longer.

And that’s not health care—it’s managed decline.

Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta taxpayers should know how much their municipal governments spend

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

Next week, voters across Alberta will go to the polls to elect their local governments. Of course, while the issues vary depending on the city, town or district, all municipal governments spend taxpayer money.

And according to a recent study, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County were among Alberta’s highest-spending municipalities (on a per-person basis) in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data). Kara Westerlund, president of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, said that’s no surprise—arguing that it’s expensive to serve a small number of residents spread over large areas.

That challenge is real. In rural areas, fewer people share the cost of roads, parks and emergency services. But high spending isn’t inevitable. Some rural municipalities managed to spend far less, demonstrating that local choices about what services to provide, and how to deliver them, matter.

Consider the contrast in spending levels among rural counties. In 2023, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County spent $5,413 and $4,619 per person, respectively. Foothills County, by comparison, spent just $2,570 per person. All three counties have relatively low population densities (fewer than seven residents per square kilometre) yet their per-person spending varies widely. (In case you’re wondering, Calgary spent $3,144 and Edmonton spent $3,241.)

Some of that variation reflects differences in the cost of similar services. For example, all three counties provide fire protection but in 2023 this service cost $56.95 per person in Grande Prairie County, $38.51 in Red Deer County and $10.32 in Foothills County. Other spending differences reflect not just how much is spent, but whether a service is offered at all. For instance, in 2023 Grande Prairie County recorded $46,283 in daycare spending, while Red Deer County and Foothills County had none.

Put simply, population density alone simply doesn’t explain why some municipalities spend more than others. Much depends on the choices municipal governments make and how efficiently they deliver services.

Westerlund also dismissed comparisons showing that some counties spend more per person than nearby towns and cities, calling them “apples to oranges.” It’s true that rural municipalities and cities differ—but that doesn’t make comparisons meaningless. After all, whether apples are a good deal depends on the price of other fruit, and a savvy shopper might switch to oranges if they offer better value. In the same way, comparing municipal spending—across all types of communities—helps Albertans judge whether they get good value for their tax dollars.

Every municipality offers a different mix of services and those choices come with different price tags. Consider three nearby municipalities: in 2023, Rockyview County spent $3,419 per person, Calgary spent $3,144 and Airdrie spent $2,187. These differences reflect real trade-offs in the scope, quality and cost of local services. Albertans should decide for themselves which mix of local services best suits their needs—but they can’t do that without clear data on what those services actually cost.

A big municipal tax bill isn’t an inevitable consequence of rural living. How much gets spent in each Alberta municipality depends greatly on the choices made by the mayors, reeves and councillors Albertans will elect next week. And for Albertans to determine whether or not they get good value for their local tax dollars, they must know how much their municipality is spending.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X