Spending restraint: Roadmap to a balanced budget

A Case for Spending Restraint: How the Federal Government Can Balance the Budget

By Grady Munro and Jake Fuss

Since 2015, there has been a deterioration in the federal government’s fiscal situation. Annual
nominal program spending has increased an estimated $193.6 billion since 2014/15; adjusted for
inflation and population growth this represents an extra $2,330 per person. Prior to the COVID
pandemic, spending increased faster than population, inflation, and other relevant economic
indicators. These spending increases have resulted in a string of large budgetary deficits that have
contributed to an estimated $941.9 billion increase in gross federal debt from 2014/15 to 2023/24.
This accumulation of debt, along with recent hikes in interest rates, has raised the cost of interest
on the federal debt to one of the largest budget expense items.

Moving forward, the federal government plans to slow nominal spending growth, which will keep inflation-adjusted, per-person spending relatively constant to 2026/27. Despite this, the federal government will continue running budget deficits and accumulating debt. It is also uncertain whether the federal government’s current estimates are truly reliable as the estimates do not incorporate expected spending on pharmacare or the level of defence spending to meet Canada’s NATO commitment. Moreover, the federal government’s track record of exceeding previous spending commitments calls into question the reliability of the current spending targets. Therefore, it is clear the federal government is not implementing the level of spending restraint necessary to reverse course towards a stable fiscal situation.

An approach to federal finances that continues to run budget deficits and accumulate debt is economically harmful to both current and future generations of Canadians. Research shows that significant increases in debt-financed spending harm economic growth by reducing capital accumulation and labour productivity.

Furthermore, accumulating debt today increases the tax burden on future generations of Canadians, as they will be responsible for paying off this debt. Despite these effects, the federal government plans to continue running deficits and accumulating debt for the foreseeable future.

This need not be the case. The federal government can undertake decisive spending reform starting in 2024— similar to the reform by the Chrétien government in the 1990s—that balances the budget within a year or two. The federal government could balance the budget in 2026/27 by limiting annual growth in nominal program spending to 0.3% for two years. This would result in a 5.9% reduction in real per-person spending. Alternatively, the budget could be balanced in 2025/26 if the federal government reduces spending 4.3% for one year; the next year, 2026/27, would see a budgetary surplus. In this scenario, inflation-adjusted per-person spending would decline by 7.5%. Key trade-offs between the two approaches include the extent of the spending reform and the speed of the return to balanced budgets. Balancing the budget in one year, as opposed to two years, would
result in $30.0 billion less debt accumulated by 2026/27.

Though it is beyond the scope of this study to discuss how such spending reforms should be implemented, there are three areas that might be considered for reform. Business subsidies are a significant expense, yet research suggests they have little if any economic benefit, and may actually harm economic growth when governments pick winners and losers in a free market. Reviewing business subsidies might provide opportunities to find savings. Aligning government-sector wages
with those in the private sector would also provide savings, as government workers in Canada currently enjoy an 8.5% wage premium (on average) relative to comparable private-sector workers. Finally, studies show that government fiscal waste can be significant. From 1988 to 2013, more than 600 government failures cost the federal government between $158.3 billion and $197.1 billion. Moreover, more than 25% of all federal COVID spending was wasteful. Addressing inefficiencies within government might also reveal savings.

Canada has seen a deterioration in the federal government’s fiscal situation since 2015. A distinct lack of spending restraint has resulted in a string of large budget deficits, which have contributed to rising government debt and debt interest costs.
Despite current fiscal plans promising more of the same, the federal government could implement decisive spending reform starting in 2024/25, similar to reforms implemented in the 1990s, and balance the budget within one or two years.
To balance the budget by 2026/27, the federal government would need to limit growth in annual nominal program spending to 0.3 percent for two years. This would translate to a 5.9 percent reduction in inflation-adjusted, per-person spending.
Alternatively, the federal government could balance the budget in one year, by 2025/26, by reducing nominal program spending by 4.3 percent. Adjusted for inflation and population, this would be a 7.5 percent decrease. In 2026/27, the federal government could then record a $8.2 billion surplus even while increasing spending from the previous year.
While this study does not provide an in-depth analysis of where potential savings should be found, research highlights three potential areas that could be targeted for spending reform: corporate welfare, aligning government-sector wages with those in the private sector, or eliminating government fiscal waste.

A Case for Spending Restraint in Canada: How the Federal Government Can Balance the Budget

Authors:

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Click here to read the full report

Related Topics:#BalancedBudget #FederalGovernment #FraserInstitute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss

Up Next

Freedom Convoy leaders sue Trudeau gov’t for targeting protesters with Emergencies Act

Don't Miss

Court to hear Charter challenge to $5,000 ArriveCAN ticket

Todayville

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

Trump: “I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!”

Energy / 2 hours ago

The Carney Government is Hijacking the Phase “Energy Superpower” to Advance Their Agenda

Alberta / 3 hours ago

‘Weird and wonderful’ wells are boosting oil production in Alberta and Saskatchewan

Business

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on November 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Artificial Intelligence

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

By Ken Macon

Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.

When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.

Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.

Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.

The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.

It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”

The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”

Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.

Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.

The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”

This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.

There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.

They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.

The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.

Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”

In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.

The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.

The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”

The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.

Google is yet to comment on the filing.