Connect with us

Business

Fiscal update reveals extent of federal government mismanagement

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Following the sudden departure of Chrystia Freeland as finance minister, the Trudeau government released its 2024 fall fiscal update on Monday. Unsurprisingly, spending is up, the deficit has ballooned even higher, and the Trudeau government continues to utterly mismanage Canada’s finances.

Let’s get into the numbers.

For the current fiscal year (2024-25), the update estimates the federal government will spend $543.4 billion while taking in $495.2 billion in revenues. This means the government plans to run a $48.3 billion deficit—$8.5 billion higher than the $39.8 billion deficit that had originally been planned just eight months ago.

The Trudeau government’s incessant need to introduce new spending at every turn has driven this increase in borrowing. Indeed, discretionary spending on programs is now expected to be $6.1 billion higher than initially projected in this year’s budget tabled in April. Revenues have also taken a hit compared to projections from the spring, primarily from the federal government’s new GST holiday.

Not only will the government run a larger deficit this year, but future deficits are also expected to rise. Cumulative deficits from 2025-26 to 2028-29 are now expected to be $14.9 billion higher than projected in the spring budget.

There are costs associated with running deficits and accumulating debt, and Canadians ultimately bear these costs. Just like anyone who takes out a loan at a bank, government must pay interest on the money it borrows. In the case of the federal government, these interest costs will reach an estimated $53.7 billion in 2024-25 alone—more than all revenue collected via the federal GST. In other words, every dollar that Canadians are expected to pay in GST this year will go towards federal debt interest, as opposed to any services or programs. And as the federal government continues to borrow more, all else equal, these interest costs will continue to rise.

While the updated deficits for 2024-25 and beyond are still estimates, the 2024 FES presents what’s likely the final deficit number for the 2023-24 fiscal year. In a remarkable display of fiscal mismanagement, the Trudeau government ran a $61.9 billion deficit last year—$21.9 billion higher than the $40.0 billion deficit projected in the budget.

This means the federal government has broken one of its fiscal rules (a.k.a. guardrails) that help guide policy on spending, taxes and borrowing. One year ago, the Trudeau government established three fiscal rules—including to keep the 2023-24 deficit at or below $40.1 billion. These rules were reaffirmed in the spring budget, and have been a key feature of the Trudeau government’s so-called “responsible economic plan.”

However, there’s nothing responsible about establishing a rule only to break it a year later. Unfortunately, the Trudeau government has made a habit breaking its self-imposed rules. In 2015, the government established its first fiscal rule—balancing the budget by fiscal year 2019-20. But it quickly abandoned this rule in subsequent months and proposed an alternative rule—to reduce federal debt relative to the size of the economy (GDP). But again, this rule became an afterthought, as federal debt increased relative to GDP in 2019-20 and continued to sharply increase during the pandemic and has yet to return to anywhere near pre-COVID levels.

As has happened consistently in the past decade, this year’s fall update reveals that spending and deficits are up compared to the budget plan the government presented just months ago. The Trudeau government is utterly mismanaging the Canada’s finances, which has caused turmoil inside the government while Canadians bear the consequences.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

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

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on

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

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 320440 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