The problem with deficits and debt

This fiscal year (2024/25), the federal government and eight out of 10 provinces project a budget deficit, meaning they’re spending more than collecting in revenues. Unfortunately, this trend isn’t new. Many Canadian governments—including the federal government—have routinely ran deficits over the last decade.

But why should Canadians care? If you listen to some politicians (and even some economists), they say deficits—and the debt they produce—are no big deal. But in reality, the consequences of government debt are real and land squarely on everyday Canadians.

Budget deficits, which occur when the government spends more than it collects in revenue over the fiscal year, fuel debt accumulation. For example, since 2015, the federal government’s large and persistent deficits have more than doubled total federal debt, which will reach a projected $2.2 trillion this fiscal year. That has real world consequences. Here are a few of them:

Diverted Program Spending: Just as Canadians must pay interest on their own mortgages or car loans, taxpayers must pay interest on government debt. Each dollar spent paying interest is a dollar diverted from public programs such as health care and education, or potential tax relief. This fiscal year, federal debt interest costs will reach $53.7 billion or $1,301 per Canadian. And that number doesn’t include provincial government debt interest, which varies by province. In Ontario, for example, debt interest costs are projected to be $12.7 billion or $789 per Ontarian.

Higher Taxes in the Future: When governments run deficits, they’re borrowing to pay for today’s spending. But eventually someone (i.e. future generations of Canadians) must pay for this borrowing in the form of higher taxes. For example, if you’re a 16-year-old Canadian in 2025, you’ll pay an estimated $29,663 over your lifetime in additional personal income taxes (that you would otherwise not pay) due to Canada’s ballooning federal debt. By comparison, a 65-year-old will pay an estimated $2,433. Younger Canadians clearly bear a disproportionately large share of the government debt being accumulated currently.

Risks of rising interest rates: When governments run deficits, they increase demand for borrowing. In other words, governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing. In response, interest rates rise, and subsequently, so does the cost of servicing government debt. Of course, the private sector also must pay these higher interest rates, which can reduce the level of private investment in the economy. In other words, private investment that would have occurred no longer does because of higher interest rates, which reduces overall economic growth—the foundation for job-creation and prosperity. Not surprisingly, as government debt has increased, business investment has declined—specifically, business investment per worker fell from $18,363 in 2014 to $14,687 in 2021 (inflation-adjusted).

Risk of Inflation: When governments increase spending, particularly with borrowed money, they add more money to the economy, which can fuel inflation. According to a 2023 report from Scotiabank, government spending contributed significantly to higher interest rates in Canada, accounting for an estimated 42 per cent of the increase in the Bank of Canada’s rate since the first quarter of 2022. As a result, many Canadians have seen the costs of their borrowing—mortgages, car loans, lines of credit—soar in recent years.

Recession Risks: The accumulation of deficits and debt, which do not enhance productivity in the economy, weaken the government’s ability to deal with future challenges including economic downturns because the government has less fiscal capacity available to take on more debt. That’s because during a recession, government spending automatically increases and government revenues decrease, even before policymakers react with any specific measures. For example, as unemployment rises, employment insurance (EI) payments automatically increase, while revenues for EI decrease. Therefore, when a downturn or recession hits, and the government wants to spend even more money beyond these automatic programs, it must go further into debt.

Government debt comes with major consequences for Canadians. To alleviate the pain of government debt on Canadians, our policymakers should work to balance their budgets in 2025.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

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

Government debt burden increasing across Canada

Health / 1 hour ago

Trump HHS officially declares only two sexes: ‘Back to science and common sense’

Health / 3 hours ago

Trudeau government buys 500k bird flu vaccines to be ‘ready’ for potential ‘health threats’

Business

Government debt burden increasing across Canada

Published on February 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill, Jake Fuss and Spencer Gudewill

As governments across Canada unveil their 2025 budgets, outlining their tax and spending plans for the upcoming fiscal year, they have an opportunity to reverse the trend of deficits and increasing debt that has reigned in recent years.

Indeed, budget deficits, which fuel debt accumulation, have become a serious fiscal challenge for the federal and many provincial governments, primarily due to high levels of government spending. Since 2007/08—the final fiscal year before the financial crisis—combined federal and provincial net debt (inflation-adjusted) has nearly doubled from $1.2 trillion to a projected $2.3 trillion in 2024/25. And you can’t blame COVID, as combined federal and provincial net debt (inflation-adjusted) increased by nearly $600 billion between 2007/08 and 2019/20.

Federal and provincial net debt (inflation-adjusted) per person has increased in every province since 2007/08. As shown in the below chart, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest combined (federal and provincial) debt per person ($68,516) in 2024/25 followed by Quebec ($60,565) and Ontario ($60,456). In contrast, Alberta has the lowest combined debt per person ($41,236) in the country. Combined federal and provincial net debt represents the total provincial net debt, and the federal portion allocated to each of the provinces based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their population as a share of Canada’s total population.

The combined federal and total provincial debt-to-GDP ratio, an important fiscal indicator that compares debt with the size of the overall economy, is projected to reach 75.2 per cent in 2024/25. By comparison, the ratio was 53.2 per cent in 2007/08. A rising debt-to-GDP ratio indicates government debt has grown at an unsustainable rate (in other words, debt levels are growing faster than the economy). Among the provinces, the combined federal-provincial debt-to-GDP ratio is highest in Nova Scotia (92.0 per cent) and lowest in Alberta (42.2 per cent). Again, the federal debt portion is allocated to provinces based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their population as a share of Canada’s total population.

Interest payments are a major consequence of debt accumulation. Governments must make interest payments on their debt similar to households that must pay interest on mortgages, vehicles or credit card spending. When taxpayer money goes towards interest payments, there’s less money available for tax cuts or government programs such as health care and education.

Interest on government debt (federal and provincial) costs each Canadian at least $1,930 in 2024/25. The amount, however, varies by province. Combined interest costs per person are highest in Newfoundland and Labrador ($3,453) and lowest in Alberta ($1,930). Similar to net debt, combined federal and provincial interest costs are represented by the total of the provincial and federal portion with the federal portion allocated to each of provinces based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their population as a share of Canada’s total population.

Debt accumulation comes with consequences for everyday Canadians as more and more taxpayer money flows towards interest payments rather than tax relief or programs and services. This budget season, federal and provincial governments should develop long-term plans to meaningfully address the growing debt problem in Canada.

Business

Elon Musk to consult President Trump on potential ‘DOGE dividend’ tax refunds

Published on February 19, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Elon Musk announced he will consult with President Donald Trump on a proposal to issue tax refund checks to Americans using savings from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The idea, originally suggested by Azoria CEO James Fishback, would involve distributing a portion of the funds DOGE claims to have saved from government cost-cutting measures. While Musk aims to reduce federal spending by $2 trillion, questions remain about the actual savings achieved by DOGE.

Key Details:

Musk responded on X that he would “check with the President” regarding the proposed tax refunds.
The plan suggests using 20% of DOGE’s $2 trillion spending cut goal—roughly $400 billion—to provide up to $5,000 per household.
Reports indicate that DOGE’s reported savings may be overstated, with Bloomberg and the New York Times pointing to discrepancies in the numbers.

Diving Deeper:

Elon Musk’s latest proposal to return taxpayer dollars through a “DOGE Dividend” has sparked discussion on federal spending and fiscal responsibility. The initiative, first floated by James Fishback, argues that savings uncovered by DOGE’s cost-cutting efforts should be refunded to taxpayers. Fishback compared it to a private sector refund when a company fails to deliver on its promises.

Musk, who leads DOGE’s advisory group, has set an ambitious goal of cutting $2 trillion from the federal government’s $6.75 trillion budget. Under Fishback’s model, 20% of those savings—$400 billion—could be distributed among American households, potentially yielding checks of around $5,000 per family.

However, skepticism surrounds DOGE’s actual savings. Bloomberg reported that only $16.6 billion of the $55 billion in savings claimed by DOGE is accounted for on its website. The New York Times revealed a miscalculation in which DOGE erroneously reported an $8 billion saving on a federal contract that was actually $8 million.

Despite legal challenges against DOGE’s authority, a federal judge recently denied an injunction that sought to block the agency’s access to federal databases or its ability to recommend government employee firings.

The concept of direct payments from the federal government has precedent. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration issued stimulus checks to Americans, with Trump’s signature appearing on IRS payments for the first time in history. Whether the current proposal will gain traction under Trump’s leadership remains to be seen.

Musk’s willingness to discuss the idea with President Trump signals that the proposal may be seriously considered, though practical and political hurdles remain.