Connect with us

Economy

If you spent and borrowed like Ottawa you’d be in big trouble

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

If the median household chose to spend like the Trudeau government, it would spend $109,982 and incur a deficit of $8,161, which it would put on a credit card. And this year—again, if the family was in the same fiscal situation as the federal government—it would pay $11,066 in interest on an overall debt burden of $427,759.

According to polling released earlier this year, two-thirds of Canadians are concerned about the size of the federal deficit. And considering its size, Canadians are right to be concerned, but it can be hard to wrap our heads around the scale of the numbers involved. A new study puts the federal deficit in more familiar terms, and shows what the median Canadian household’s finances would be like if it budgeted like the federal government.

This year, the Trudeau government plans to spend $537.7 billion while expecting to collect $497.8 billion in revenues—a $39.8 billion difference or deficit, which represents the amount of money Ottawa must borrow in 2024/25 to cover its spending commitments. The Trudeau government has run deficits every year for the last decade, and plans to continue running deficits for at least the next five consecutive years.

Consequently, the government has racked up massive amounts of debt. In 2024/25, federal gross debt is expected to reach $2.1 trillion, which is nearly double the $1.1 trillion held in 2015/16.

So what would the median household budget look like in 2024 if it managed its finances like the federal government?

In 2024, the median household will earn $101,821 after taxes (median means half of Canadian families earn more than this amount and the other half earn less). If the median household chose to spend like the Trudeau government, it would spend $109,982 and incur a deficit of $8,161, which it would put on a credit card. And this year—again, if the family was in the same fiscal situation as the federal government—it would pay $11,066 in interest on an overall debt burden of $427,759.

While it’s clear that a family spending 11 cents of every dollar it earns on debt interest, and ending the year with $8,161 in new credit card debt, is not in a good financial situation, there’s an important nuance that makes this situation even worse.

For this comparison (the federal government and a Canadian household) to work, we shouldn’t view the $427,759 in debt as a mortgage. Why? Because when a family takes out a mortgage, the amount of debt is balanced by the value of the house. In other words, the family could sell the house and use that money to pay off most or all of the outstanding mortgage.

The same cannot be said about government debt. In many cases, government debt is not backed by many assets. In the unlikely scenario the federal government used all of its financial assets to pay off its debt, it would still be left with $1.4 trillion in debt this fiscal year. If the government went a step further and sold all its non-financial assets (which includes all buildings and land owned by the federal government), it would still have $1.3 trillion in debt. In other words, more than half of the federal government’s debt cannot be paid off simply by selling its assets.

The Trudeau government continues to spend beyond its means and rack up mountains of debt every year, which has eroded federal finances. If a family budgeted like the federal government, it would be in big financial trouble.

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

The painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Sylvain Charlebois

Canadians are feeling the pinch as Ottawa’s trade blunders and a weak dollar drive grocery bills higher

Almost a year ago, Canada’s Food Price Report projected that food inflation in 2025 would range between three and five per cent. We now stand squarely at four.

For consumers, it’s been a bruising year. After months of relative calm, grocery prices have surged again since spring, driven by tariffs, weather disruptions and a weakening Canadian dollar.

Between March and September, food inflation jumped sharply across several everyday staples. Coffee and tea prices rose by nearly 15 percentage points, sugar and confectionery climbed by more than three, while beef and condiments each increased by about one.

These aren’t luxury goods—they’re breakfast-table essentials. Canadians are paying more for their morning coffee, family barbecues and pantry staples than they were just six months ago.

When compared with other G7 countries, Canada’s performance stands out—and not in a good way. Japan currently faces the highest food inflation rate at 7.2 per cent, followed by the United Kingdom at 5.1 per cent. Canada sits third at 3.8 per cent, the only G7 country to post three consecutive monthly increases. Italy follows closely at 3.7 per cent, while the United States, Germany and France are all below Canada at 3.2, 2.9 and 1.7 per cent, respectively. For an advanced, food-producing nation, this is not a comfortable position.

Much of the renewed pressure can be traced back to trade policy. The counter tariffs introduced in March, combined with new U.S. measures, have quietly inflated costs across the entire food chain. Tariffs are by nature inflationary: they disrupt market efficiencies, raise input prices and trigger retaliatory actions that make goods more expensive on both sides of the border. What begins as a political statement quickly becomes an economic burden, felt most acutely in grocery aisles.

The loonie’s recent weakness has only made matters worse. Since January, the Canadian dollar has fallen significantly against the U.S. dollar, amplifying the cost of imported products such as coffee, cocoa and processed foods. For a country that imports roughly $70 billion in food annually, currency depreciation functions like a silent tax on every grocery bill.

As we move into the winter months, these forces show few signs of easing. Transportation costs remain high, retailers are passing along supplier increases and consumers are already adapting by trading down or buying less. While overall inflation is moderating elsewhere in the world, Canada’s food sector is moving in the opposite direction.

Prime Minister Mark Carney recently remarked that his government will be judged by the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store. On that score, Canadians are indeed paying attention. Tariffs, trade friction and a soft currency have all converged to make food more expensive. Voters are noticing.

In a world where food inflation is once again a global problem, Canada’s return to the top of the G7 pack is an unenviable distinction.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Business

Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder

Published on

Mike Davies calls for ambition and reform to build a stronger Canada

A shift in ambition

A year after the Trans Mountain Expansion Project came into service, Mike Davies, Senior Director of Marine Development at Trans Mountain, told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that the project’s success should mark the beginning of a new national mindset — one defined by ambition, reform, and nation building.

“It took fifteen years to get this version of the project built,” Davies said. “During that time, Canadian producers lost about $50 billion in value because they were selling into a discounted market. We have some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas, but we can only trade with one other country. That’s unusual.”

With the expansion now in operation, that imbalance is shifting. “The differential on Canadian oil has narrowed by about $13 billion,” he said. “That’s value that used to be extracted by the United States and now stays in Canada — supporting healthcare, reconciliation, and energy transformation. About $5 billion of that is in royalties and taxes. It’s meaningful for us as a society.”

Davies rejected the notion that Trans Mountain was a public subsidy. “The federal government lent its balance sheet so that nation-building infrastructure could get built,” he said. “In our first full year of operation, we’ll return more than $1.3 billion to the federal government, rising toward $2 billion annually as cleanup work wraps up.”

At the Westridge Marine Terminal, shipments have increased from one tanker a week to nearly one a day, with more than half heading to Asia. “California remains an important market,” Davies said, “but diversification is finally happening — and it’s vital to our long-term prosperity.”

Fixing the system to move forward

Davies said this moment of success should prompt a broader rethinking of how Canada approaches resource development. “We’re positioned to take advantage of this moment,” he said. “Public attitudes are shifting. Canadians increasingly recognize that our natural resource advantages are a strength, not a liability. The question now is whether governments can seize it — and whether we’ll see that reflected in policy.”

He argued that governments have come to view regulation as a “free good,” without acknowledging its economic consequences. “Over the past decade, we’ve seen policy focus almost exclusively on environmental and reconciliation objectives,” he said. “Those are vital, but the public interest extends well beyond that — to include security, economic welfare, the rule of law, transparency, and democratic participation.”

Davies said good policy should not need to be bypassed to get projects built. “I applaud the creation of a Major Projects Office, but it’s a disgrace that we have to end run the system,” he said. “We need to fix it.”

He called for “deep, long-term reform” to restore scalability and investment confidence. “Linear infrastructure like pipelines requires billions in at-risk capital before a single certificate is issued,” he said. “Canada has a process for everything — we’re a responsible country — but it doesn’t scale for nation-building projects.”

Regulatory reform, he added, must go hand in hand with advancing economic reconciliation. “The challenge of our generation is shifting Indigenous communities from dependence to participation,” he said. “That means real ownership, partnership, and revenue opportunities.”

Davies urged renewed cooperation between Alberta and British Columbia, calling for “interprovincial harmony” on West Coast access. “I’d like to see Alberta see B.C. as part of its constituency,” he said. “And I’d like to see B.C. recognize the need for access.”

He summarized the path forward in plain terms: “We need to stem the exit of capital, create an environment that attracts investment, simplify approvals to one major process, and move decisions from the courts to clear legislation. If we do that, we can finally move from being a market hostage to being a competitor — and a nation builder.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X