Big Promises, Bigger Deficits: Inside the Liberal Party’s Costed Platform
The Liberal Party has unveiled its costed election platform with sweeping promises and staggering numbers: $130 billion in new spending over four years, deficits climbing as high as $62.3 billion, and a commitment to bring Canada’s finances back to balance—eventually—by relying on undefined savings and optimistic economic multipliers.
Major funding is earmarked for housing, infrastructure, digital transformation, childcare, youth employment, healthcare, Arctic development, and green transition programs. In year one alone, the Liberals plan to spend over $35 billion in new investments, which moves to more than $31 billion by 2028-29. These include multibillion-dollar commitments such as the Canada Strong Pass, the Nation-Building Project Fund, billions for Arctic and Indigenous infrastructure, as well as military spending that would increase annually until reaching $6.75 billion in new defense operating investments by 2028-29.
But as the platform lays out a massive spending roadmap, its fiscal framework immediately invites skepticism. The projected deficits rise from $46.8 billion in the PBO’s baseline for 2025-26 to $62.3 billion under the platform’s assumptions. Deficits remain above $50 billion until at least 2027-28 and are only projected to dip below that in the final year—still coming in at $47.8 billion. Even under what’s called the “upside scenario” in the platform, the deficit-to-GDP ratio remains in the red, landing at -0.95% by 2028-29.
Yet in an accounting move that has raised eyebrows, the Liberals distinguish between “operating” and “capital” deficits—claiming that by excluding long-term investments from the operating budget, they will achieve a slim surplus of $222 million by 2028-29.
Former finance advisor and economist Jean Philippe Fournier called the platform “fiscally dangerous,” warning that this framework could lead to Canada losing its AAA credit rating.
“Their $250 billion in new spending will still add to the debt. You just won’t see it. Canada, in its current state, can’t afford this,” he wrote on social media.
Later on, it was revealed in an interview that the plan was allegedly finalized before Mark Carney officially came on board—what Canadians are seeing is still “Justin Trudeau’s platform with a few tweaks.”
The largest single offset for the first year is a projected $20 billion in new revenue from a “tariff response” to the US. While positioned as a retaliation measure, this is effectively a tax on Canadian consumers, who will absorb the higher costs of imported goods. Additional savings are also promised from increased fines and penalties, and improvements in public sector productivity—amounting to $28 billion in expected savings across four years.
Another point of contention is the platform’s assumption that government spending will yield increasingly strong economic returns. In a rare moment of candor, the platform admits that the fiscal multipliers on current spending are below 1.0—meaning every dollar the government spends results in less than one dollar of GDP growth. This directly contradicts the Liberals’ own projections from 2016, which estimated multipliers as high as four.
Conservative MP Michael Chong noted that the deficits “get worse rather than get better—and they’re already pretty serious.”
“Carney’s Liberals are upping spending as Trudeau’s Liberals did. Same policies, same results,” Chong added.
How Do I Balance Thee?
Observers also took issue with the lack of long-term economic strategy, detailing the potential revenue pipeline to finance the proposed budget plan. The absence of energy policy in a country still reliant on oil and gas exports did not go unnoticed.
Despite being marketed as the product of an economist’s steady hand, the platform’s reception suggests otherwise. A journalist reportedly challenged Carney on the fact that, based on his numbers, Canada would still be more than $60 billion in the red. His response—encapsulated by “I know, I’m an economist”—was met with derision.
A CTV analyst pored into the plan and found that “there is no path to balancing the budget.”
The backlash was intense enough that the platform was reportedly quietly removed from the Liberal Party website just days after its release. Observers speculate this may have been a damage control move, as coverage and commentary turned overwhelmingly critical. The webpage has since been reactivated, with the full costing plan available here.
Information for this briefing was found via the sources mentioned. The author has no securities or affiliations related to this organization. Not a recommendation to buy or sell. Always do additional research and consult a professional before purchasing a security. The author holds no licenses.
