From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The Trudeau government will soon release its fall economic statement. Though technically intended to be an update on the fiscal plan in this year’s budget, in recent years the fall economic statement has more closely resembled a “mini-budget” that unveils new (and often significant) spending commitments and initiatives.

Let’s look at the data.

The chart below includes projections of annual federal program spending from a series of federal budgets and updates, beginning with the 2022 budget and ending with the latest 2024 budget. Program spending equals total spending minus debt interest costs, and represents discretionary spending by the federal government.

Clearly, there’s a trend that with every consecutive budget and fiscal update the Trudeau government revises spending estimates upwards. Take the last two fiscal years, 2023/24 and 2024/25, for example. Budget 2022 projected annual program spending of $436.5 billion for the 2023/24 fiscal year. Yet the fall economic statement released just months later revised that spending estimate up to $449.8 billion, and later releases showed even higher spending.

The issue is even more stark when examining spending projections for the current fiscal year. Budget 2022 projected annual spending of $441.6 billion in 2024/25. Since then, every subsequent fiscal release has revised that estimate higher and higher, to the point that Budget 2024 estimates program spending of $483.6 billion for this year—representing a $42.0 billion increase from the projections only two years ago.

Meanwhile, as spending estimates are revised upwards, plans to reduce the federal deficit are consistently pushed off into later years.

For example, the 2022 fall economic statement projected a deficit of $25.4 billion for the 2024/25 fiscal year, and declining deficits in the years to come, before reaching an eventual surplus of $4.5 billion in 2027/28. However, subsequent budgets and fiscal updates again revised those estimates. The latest budget projects a deficit of $39.8 billion in 2024/25 that will decline to a $26.8 billion deficit by 2027/28. In other words, though budgets and fiscal updates have consistently projected declining deficits between 2024/25 and 2027/28, each subsequent document has produced larger deficits throughout the fiscal outlook and pushed the timeline for balanced budgets further into the future.

These data illustrate the Trudeau government’s lack of accountability to its own fiscal plans. Though the unpredictable nature of forecasting means the government is unlikely to exactly meet future projections, it’s still reasonable to expect it will roughly follow its own fiscal plans. However, time and time again Canadians have been sold a certain plan, only to have it change dramatically mere months later due to the government’s unwillingness to restrain spending. We shouldn’t expect the upcoming fall economic statement to be any different.

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jock Finlayson and Tegan Hill

A recent report by the Canada West Foundation, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, found that all 25 were still stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process.

Did you know that the Trudeau government wants to “decarbonize” Canada’s electricity generation by 2035? That is, make carbon-free sources (e.g. wind, hydro and solar) the sole power source for electricity generation in Canada.

Is this possible? No.

As of 2023 (the latest year of available data), nearly 81 per cent of Canada’s electricity came from carbon-free sources. To replace the remaining 19 per cent that relies on fossil fuels over the next 10 years, Canada would need to add a massive amount of generation capacity.

Specifically, we would need approximately 23 new large hydroelectric dams similar in size to British Columbia’s Site C project. Of course, due to regulatory hurdles and approval processes, it takes a long time to plan and construct major electricity generation facilities in Canada. The Site C project took approximately 43 years (from initial feasibility and planning studies in 1971) to secure environmental certification in 2014. Construction finally began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015 with completion expected in 2025—at a cost of at least $16 billion.

Alternatively, we would need more than two large scale nuclear power plants the size of Ontario’s Bruce Power, which took nearly two decades to complete with billions of dollars in cost overruns.

Or we’d need approximately 11,000 new large wind turbines, which would require clearing approximately 7,302 square kilometres of land (that’s larger than Prince Edward Island and nearly nine times larger than Calgary). The new turbines would also require substantial investments in backup power systems due to the wind’s intermittency, which of course would further drive-up costs across the electricity system.

And remember, as Canada’s population grows, electricity demand will increase significantly. The infrastructure mentioned above would only decarbonize Canada’s current electricity needs, without accounting for the additional capacity required to meet future demand.

And yet, despite its aggressive plan to decarbonize, the Trudeau government in 2019 introduced the Impact Assessment Act (IAA)—also known as Bill C-69—which added layers of uncertainty and complexity to project reviews. A recent report by the Canada West Foundation, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, found that all 25 were still stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process.

In other words, while Ottawa’s electricity decarbonization plan requires an unprecedented wave of new energy projects, the government’s own regulatory regime will make it harder for new projects to get off the ground.

The total costs of the federal government’s plan are incalculable. But we do know who will get hurt the most. Three provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—depend most heavily on fossil fuels to generate electricity. In Alberta, approximately 85 per cent of electricity comes from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas, while carbon-free sources generate only 15 per cent. Clearly, Alberta and these other provinces will face the greatest challenges—and heaviest burdens—in decarbonizing their grids.

In light of the basic realities of project construction timelines, regulatory hurdles and the massive financial investment required, the Trudeau government’s target to achieve 100 per cent fossil fuel-free electricity by 2035 is far-fetched. But the costs of pursuing that target will be very real and felt by all Canadians, with the size of the costs depending largely on where you live.