Prime Minister Mark Carney has unveiled Budget 2025 with the confidence of a man convinced this one document might solve our external tariff threats, domestic housing crisis, and a persistent productivity stall. The branding alone is dramatic: “Canada Strong.” The pitch is that this is a generational turning point budget—a massive $280 billion in targeted investments in housing, infrastructure, defence, and competitiveness over five years. To many Canadians, it reads like the government finally intends to build a modern, resilient economy. But once you go beyond the glossy slides and aspirational charts, the underlying mechanics raise serious questions about feasibility, track record, and credibility.
The Bureaucratic Problem We’ve Heard About Before
The federal public service has ballooned from 257,000 employees in 2015 to approximately 385,000 today—a 50 percent increase within ten years while population only expanded 25 percent. Despite this growth, Canada’s productivity and GDP per capita have not kept pace. Budget 2025 responds with a bold promise to reverse the trend through the Comprehensive Expenditure Review (CER), projecting a workforce reduction of roughly 40,000 roles mainly through attrition, and $15 billion in long-term efficiency savings.
Historically, these reviews rarely meet expectations. Only four out of the last ten federal “spending reviews” since the 1970s delivered their full savings targets. Trudeau’s last CER achieved barely a quarter of what was projected. Union friction, future economic shocks requiring emergency staffing, and the tendency to reallocate any realized savings toward new political priorities all remain very real risks. Without genuine program simplification and agency elimination—something in the range of 10–15 percent cuts in overlapping areas—this effort risks becoming just another promise to slim the bureaucracy that goes nowhere.
The Reclassification Game
Budget 2025 uses a new “Capital Budgeting Framework.” This allows Ottawa to reclassify spending that would normally be considered operational—ongoing program funding, grants, subsidies—into long-term capital “investment.”
This relabeling is significant.
By shifting billions this way, operational spending appears restrained and more “disciplined,” while capital spending explodes on paper to support the narrative of generational construction—without necessarily changing the real cash leaving government. In practice, this means the budget can claim an operational spending trajectory under 1 percent annual growth, while still committing $280 billion over five years toward ambitious economic targets.
Economists will point out that capital spending traditionally does have higher GDP multipliers—1.5 to 3.0 vs. near 1.0 for operational expenditures—and in a tariff-heavy world, targeted capital investment could be wise. But it also allows Ottawa to defer real fiscal pain and create the illusion of greater restraint. This is a form of optimistic accounting—legal, strategically clever, but highly dependent on flawless execution and high ROI from projects that historically have suffered from delays, bureaucratic approvals, and regulatory drag.
The “Generational Investments” – Reality vs. Promise
| Category | 5-Year Allocation | Objective | Likelihood Based on Track Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Housing | $25B | Rapid new starts | Housing starts already falling despite prior billions |
| Infrastructure | $115B | Tariff insulation + nation-building | Historically plagued with overruns and delays |
| Defence | $30B | Modern readiness | Procurement infamously inefficient |
| Productivity & Competitiveness | $110B | AI & advanced manufacturing push | Previous green industrial investment returns have been uneven |
If this capital surge truly crowds in private investment—Ottawa is forecasting up to $1 trillion in leveraged capital—Canada could position itself well ahead of a potentially hostile global trade cycle. But if bureaucratic friction slows deployment, or if political reversals stall implementation, Canadians could simply inherit larger deficits without the corresponding economic lift.
Final Assessment
Budget 2025 is not naïve. The tariff environment with the United States is a legitimate threat. Canada does require strategic industrial and infrastructure buildout. In theory, Ottawa is choosing long-term growth over short-term caution, which can be argued as economically rational.
The real concern is execution. Canada’s recent history in major public spending programs shows chronic under-delivery compared with announcements. The scale of this plan is not the issue—the ability to implement at scale is.
A sound recommendation—if this path is going to be defensible—would be firm legislative guardrails: performance-tied funding releases, clean project auditing, and enforceable caps on operational re-expansion. Without that, Budget 2025 risks becoming another cycle of high vision paired with weak delivery.
Canadians deserve growth that materializes—not merely the hope of future prosperity printed in red boxes on a budget cover.
marksdeepthoughts.ca 
Leave a comment