Confidential Brief to Canadians: My analysis of Mark Carney’s fiscal framework I spent Easter weekend reading and analyzing Mark Carney’s proposed fiscal framework in detail. I hold an MBA in economics and finance, and before diving into the numbers, I also consulted with a few trusted economists. Together, we went through the plan with a fine-tooth comb. Here’s what I found: 👇🏻 📉 Deficit-to-GDP ratio Under this plan, the deficit-to-GDP ratio would rise by 65% by the final year. That’s a significant and concerning increase. 💸 Debt-to-GDP ratio Based on my calculations, the debt-to-GDP ratio would hover around 42% throughout the entire horizon of the framework (42.4% in 2028–2029), instead of falling to 39.5% as the platform claims. 📈 Federal debt Even factoring in the proposed savings, this plan would add $83 billion to the federal debt. 🧾 Claimed new revenues and savings: $52B But here’s the issue: 👉🏻 $20B is projected to come from new tariffs, which carry serious risks of trade retaliation and economic slowdown. 👉🏻 $28B comes from so-called “government efficiency” — frankly, this is wishful thinking. That portion is almost entirely undocumented. ⚠️ Unrealistic ambition Generating $28B in savings over 4 years, including $13B in the final year alone, is extremely ambitious. And frankly, it’s hard to believe — especially coming from a government proposing dozens of new programs with no plan to scale back its footprint in provincial jurisdictions. ❌ Politically invisible measures What struck me most was the sheer number of measures in this budget that no voter will see or understand during the campaign. Carney is tying his government’s hands with technical, behind-the-scenes commitments that are politically irrelevant. A puzzling choice. 🧮 New spending: $130B The platform outlines $130 billion in new measures over four years, which would increase the federal debt by $225 to $250 billion. 🌍 Net-zero by 2029–2039 A laudable goal, but the plan excludes infrastructure spending from the operating budget. ✅ These costs won’t show up in the deficit ❌ But they will add directly to the debt Yes, this mirrors the model used in Quebec’s Plan québécois des infrastructures (PQI). In theory, it can work — but only with strict oversight of capital investments. Otherwise, the debt will balloon far beyond projections. ⚠️ A credibility risk for Canada An additional $250B in debt, combined with a stagnant debt-to-GDP ratio, will inevitably raise red flags with credit rating agencies. It risks eroding confidence in the long-term fiscal viability of the plan — and of the government that implements it. 🔮 Overly optimistic assumptions The framework is built on economic assumptions that are frankly unrealistic, in a context of: 👉🏻 potential economic slowdown triggered by tariffs 👉🏻 and unplanned increases in spending if a recession hits 🎯 Conclusion If this plan is implemented, credit agencies — and markets — may very well lose confidence. Not just in the fiscal framework, but in the government itself.