I wanted to be outraged by the federal government’s decision to skip the spring budget. As a public finance policy nerd and card-carrying transparency advocate, I should be livid — ready to march on Parliament Hill chanting:
“What do we want?”
“A budget!”
“When do we want it?”
“Now!”
But the truth is, the fury just isn’t there. Don’t get me wrong — the Carney government should have tabled a spring budget. But the most I can offer is a sigh and a small dose of dismay. Like my team giving up a late goal with a 5-0 lead — disappointing to lose the shutout, but not worth flipping a table.
Why? Because there’s a reasonable case for holding off, if the government delivers the goods in the fall.
Let’s face it: a spring budget delivered in haste would have been half-baked at best. Final numbers for 2024–25 aren’t in yet. The economic outlook wobbles with every Trump social media post. And the government’s plan to restructure the Canadian economy is still more campaign aspiration than execution blueprint.
This isn’t about the department of finance. That machine knows how to make a budget. I’d wager the technical guts of one were drafted months ago. The real limitation is on political resources. A budget consumes everything — time, bandwidth and political capital. Ministers and staff get pulled into a many weeks-long vortex of decisions and messaging. In a moment of significant economic and political transition, that would not be the best use of time and energy.
And this is a major transition. A new(ish) prime minister. A new(ish) finance minister. An ambitious agenda that promises to overhaul housing, natural resources, national defence, internal trade, and industrial strategies. Combine that with volatile geopolitics and global trade shifts, and there’s a case for taking the time to get the plan right. Not just properly costed, but backed by clear timelines and deliverables. That’s something the previous government often struggled with; grand ambitions only matter with strong implementation.
Yes, technically this isn’t a new government. But given the high degree of leadership and policy change, some slack is warranted. Ontario, for example, took 77 days between its 2025 election and its spring budget. Apply that math federally and you get mid-July. Add a bit more time to reflect the scope of change in both leadership and policy direction, and a late-summer or early-fall budget starts to look reasonable, especially with Parliament scheduled to resume in mid-September. In the meantime, supply bills ensure government operations continue and maintain the usual parliamentary oversight of spending.
Sure, delivering a fiscal benchmark is important. But in an era of trade shocks, political instability, and climate disruption, even the best-crafted budgets age quickly. Again, Ontario provides a useful example. The province has bounced from projected surpluses to multi-billion-dollar deficits with nearly every fiscal plan update: not because of flawed management, but because reality keeps shifting. The same is true federally. A spring budget would have offered a baseline, but one that could easily be overtaken by events before the next fiscal year… or even the fall. How valuable would a late spring budget really be when it could face a massive revision in just a few months?
All that said, skipping the spring budget isn’t consequence-free. Budgets are about more than funding. They’re a signal. A spring budget would have laid a baseline. Even if that baseline needed revisiting by the fall, it would have set expectations, clarified assumptions, and outlined early costs. And for a government elected on transformational change, it would have helped separate rhetorical ambition from deliverable reality.
The fall budget will need to make up for all that. It must include a credible policy implementation plan, costed timelines, and clear fiscal benchmarks. Ideally, it should land early in the session — mid-September, not late November. It needs to present a path to fiscal sustainability. It should also clarify the prime minister’s stated shift from traditional deficit targets toward an “investment or consumption” lens on the fiscal plan. In plain English: distinguishing between investments that build long-term economic capacity and short-term operational spending That is a valid shift, and a more nuanced and growth-oriented approach. But it needs to be clearly defined, communicated, and implemented.
Beyond the program and financial content, the federal government could also raise the bar on transparency. Introduce legislated timelines for future budgets and fall economic statements. Deliver public accounts earlier. Tidy up the presentation of financial statements. Give provinces and municipalities a clearer line of sight into federal transfer and tax plans, so their own budgeting isn't a guessing game.
So yes, I understand there are reasons for not doing a federal government budget until the fall. But Canadians didn’t just vote for a change in tone — they voted for a change in direction. And that comes with expectations.
We can wait until the fall, but the next federal budget badly needs to meet the moment.
Donate Now