This one-off is much more than it appears to be. Along with finalizing the fall date on a permanent basis, the government is also restructuring how it determines spending.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 13, 2025.

OTTAWA—Elections and budgets seem to stall governments. When it comes to an election, no one knows the outcome, so the bureaucracy must go into a holding pattern while they await the outcome.

As for budgets, bureaucrats are loath to make new commitments or policy changes until they know what impact the budget will have on their operating costs.

Last week’s announcement that future budget dates will be moved from the spring to the fall was met with a yawn by most Canadians.

While the business world needs financial certainty to make investment decisions, ordinary people don’t really care whether the work is announced in the spring or the fall.

In the current circumstance, the government had to change the date this year to accommodate the delay caused by the April election, and the change in cabinet.

A new finance minister needs time to be briefed on all the issues, and to make financial decisions.

But this one-off is much more than it appears to be. Along with finalizing the fall date on a permanent basis, the government is also restructuring how it determines spending.

The intention is to make it clearer that long-term capital investments are a different line item than regular operational costs.

The Conservative finance critic Jasraj Hallan immediately attacked the announcement of this new approach. He claims that what the government calls “Modernizing Canada’s Budgeting Approach” is merely another way of “cooking the books.”

But the government is insisting that the new financing mechanisms are consistent with international guidelines. The autumn budget means that the bulk of the government spending decisions will happen after the April fiscal year end, which should bring spending habits closer to actual financial reality.

The insistence that the government differentiate between operational costs and long-term capital investments will help Canadians understand why, in some instances, current deficits build up long-term equity.

To the ordinary person, the analogy would be a mortgage. If you hold debt in order to build equity, such as in the owning of a house, you are investing in the future, not simply spending.

If the same amount of money is spent on disposable items like clothing or coffee purchases, they are obviously not appreciating assets and need to be viewed differently.

Just as a mortgage is worth holding for a family, national investment in housing stock, public transit, and major infrastructure projects can easily be understood as capital expenditures for long-term Canadian economic stability.

If we don’t spend on capital expenditures, like housing, we find ourselves in a housing crisis like the one that has thrown the country into turmoil.

For the past 30 years, the federal government transferred housing dollars to the provinces with no guarantee that housing would be built. And when it wasn’t, we landed in a crisis of social housing that will take a decade to overcome.

A plan to treat that investment separately from general government-service spending may be better understood by the public, but not everyone agrees.

The interim parliamentary budget officer Jason Jacques says that the definition of capital expenditures is too broad, going beyond international standards. The former parliamentary budget officer disagrees, saying the new accounting is additional information to what will continue to be provided to Canadians.

Conservative MP Pat Kelly also attacked the changes, saying “Debt is still debt at the end of the day—doesn’t matter how many columns you try to present to Canadians.”

With the fall budget date, most departments will likely be changing the way they manage year-end spending. In the current climate, most departments try and spend all the money in their budgets before the end of March, which is the fiscal year-end. If surplus funding lapses, their next budget could be reduced as a consequence.

With the government plans to reduce operational spending, the appetite to accelerate year-end spending will be blunted.

At the end of the day, most Canadians will pay little attention to these changes. In general, people don’t even fully understand the difference between an economic statement and a budget. Departments will be following closely, as will the business world.

The separation between operational spending and capital investment will provide a better snapshot of government priorities, like mega-projects meant to stimulate the economy, or capital investments in public infrastructure.

The Finance Department is characterizing these decisions as generational investments.

But governments generally only get credit for what is happening in the short term. Long-term planning has never been a political strong suit.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

After the 30-hour vote marathon by the Conservatives, the temperature in Parliament continued to rise. Public opinion polls showed that most observers were not impressed with the parliamentary chaos.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 18, 2023.

OTTAWA—Andrew Scheer is looking a little more ruddy than usual. And it isn’t because of a cheeky response to Christmas cheer.

Instead, the former Speaker is ruby red because he got caught doing exactly what he was excoriating House Speaker Greg Fergus for. He used his parliamentary office for a partisan video, and was quietly fined $500 earlier this year because of the infraction.

Speaker Fergus will face a similar fine, following a report from the Procedure and House Affairs Committee on his ill-advised decision to film a retirement video for a former Liberal colleague in his speaker’s robes. PROC members voted to fine Fergus and seek a second apology, but they stopped short of making his transgression a sackable offence.

That decision was opposed by the minority Conservative and Bloc Québécois committee members, but the main opponent of the ill-fated Speaker’s video was forced into silence himself when it was revealed that Scheer had made a similar mistake earlier this year.

The former Speaker and erstwhile Conservative leader has been vociferous in his calls for Fergus’ head, but he was muted on Dec. 14 when it was revealed that he paid a fine earlier this year for an eerily similar breach.

Scheer wrongfully filmed a political video in his office. Unlike Fergus’ retirement message, Scheer shot a campaign pitch in support of a parachute candidate in a southwestern Ontario byelection last June.

The fine was levied quietly, as are all decisions from the Commons Board of Internal Economy, but was leaked to the media last week when Fergus received the PROC decision. Tories and the Bloc continued to call for Fergus’ resignation, but the majority of parliamentarians felt he had committed a non-fireable error.

Fergus definitely dodged a bullet, but so did Parliament. The idea of dumping a new Speaker just months after the resignation of his predecessor in the face global scorn would have fomented the already precarious climate in Canada’s House of Commons.

After the 30-hour vote marathon by the Conservatives, the temperature in Parliament continued to rise. Public opinion polls showed that most observers were not impressed with the parliamentary chaos.

The Conservatives, still well ahead in the polls, suffered a precipitous five-point drop in the days following the filibuster. The drop may take a little wind out of their sails. A huge lead tends to fuel arrogance in any political party, while a tight race forces parties to behave in a manner that the public would expect.

Scheer claimed his attacks were largely based on his experience and knowledge of rules, stemming from the time he served as Speaker. But now that everyone knows he has broken the same rules that he claims to know so well, he won’t be as sanctimonious in his assessment of Fergus’ mistake.

No doubt, Fergus will have to work hard to rebuild the confidence that he lost because of his lapse of judgement. But turning the Speaker’s office into a revolving door would have done nothing to restore the confidence of Members of Parliament.

As his survival is dependent on support from Liberals and New Democrats, Fergus will be closely watched for bias in favour of those two parties. Liberals have privately expressed that they are worried he will be overly tough on them in an effort to prove his impartiality.

All in all, the parties will be walking on political eggshells in the new year.

Time with loved ones over Christmas will give all members a chance to enjoy some well-needed rest and family time. That should mean a happier perspective when they return to work in January.

But next year everyone will be moving into pre-election mode, which could stoke the negative vibes that were experienced before the Christmas break.

The Tories obviously want an election as soon as possible, so any way that they can provoke a crisis plays into their disruptor agenda. The Bloc is moving up in the polls, so the survival of Parliament depends more on the viewpoint of the New Democratic Party.

They continue to check off their list of accomplishments in working with the Liberals. Last week’s dental care announcement was another example of how the partnership has been helpful for Canadians. Whether the New Democrats translate that work into future seats remains to be seen. But they have certainly held up their end of parliamentary work.

The Liberals are going to work hard to keep Parliament happy, because they need time and space to rebuild their popularity.

Meanwhile, to all Parliamentarians and Canadians: HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.