On Monday Brant asked elected officials to justify their distribution decisions.
To do that, we first need to understand how government money actually moves.
What Parliament votes on—and what it doesn’t
Every year, the federal government presents Main Estimates to Parliament. This is the formal request for spending authority.
For 2025-26, that request totals $222.9 billion.
Parliament debates this amount. MPs vote. Citizens can, in theory, track which representatives approved which expenditures.
But there’s another category of spending that doesn’t require annual Parliamentary approval: statutory spending.
Statutory spending flows automatically, based on legislation already passed. It includes programs like Old Age Security, the Canada Child Benefit, and Employment Insurance.
For 2025-26, statutory spending totals $257.6 billion.
Think of it like a household budget where most expenses renew automatically. Your mortgage, insurance, utilities—these don’t require a new decision each month. They’re committed until you actively change them.
Combined, total federal spending for 2025-26 is $480.5 billion.
Of that, 46% requires annual Parliamentary approval. The other 54% flows automatically.
The capital versus operational redefinition
In November 2025, Prime Minister Carney’s government introduced a new Capital Budgeting Framework.
The stated goal: separate spending that builds long-term capacity (capital investment) from day-to-day operations.
Under this framework, the government claims it will balance “operational spending” with revenues within three years.
Here’s where it gets procedural.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed the new framework and found something noteworthy. The government’s definition of “capital investment” is significantly broader than international accounting standards.
How much broader?
The PBO calculated that the government counts approximately $94 billion more as “capital investment” than the System of National Accounts would recognize.
This includes items like corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits, and operating subsidies to private companies.
The PBO’s assessment: “Federal spending under these categories represents their fiscal cost and not necessarily the amount of private sector capital formation that will be undertaken in the economy.”
What does this mean in practice?
Under traditional accounting, the operational deficit remains in deficit position. Under the new framework, it appears balanced.
This reclassification changes what the numbers appear to say.
The PBO recommended that an independent expert body determine which spending qualifies as capital investment. The government has not yet established such a body.
What this means for a typical household
Let’s translate this to a household.
Canada has approximately 19.4 million tax filers. Total federal spending of $480.5 billion means each tax filer’s share is roughly $24,767.
Of that:
- $11,489 requires annual Parliamentary debate and approval
- $13,278 flows automatically through statutory programs
Now let’s look at the Martinez family specifically.
They’re a two-income household earning $80,000 annually. Based on average effective tax rates, they contribute approximately $12,000 in federal revenues.
Of their $12,000 contribution:
- $5,520 goes to programs Parliament votes on each year
- $6,480 goes to programs that flow automatically
Why consent gets lost
Here’s the question our member raised: when did the Martinez family consent to this allocation?
For statutory programs, the answer is: when Parliament originally passed the legislation, sometimes decades ago. The Canada Pension Plan Act dates to 1965. The Employment Insurance Act to 1996. The Income Tax Act (which governs the Canada Child Benefit) has been amended hundreds of times since 1985.
These programs may be essential. Their importance doesn’t eliminate the need for accountability.
In a representative democracy, consent is delegated. The question is how often—and how transparently—that consent is renewed.
For voted spending, the answer is more complex. Parliament approves the total. But the Martinez family never sees a breakdown showing:
- Which programs received funding
- What economic multiplier was expected
- What results were actually achieved
- Whether those programs should continue
The consent mechanism question
The question isn’t whether these programs are good or bad.
The question is: where does the mechanism exist for taxpayers to renew consent?
Statutory programs continue until Parliament actively changes them. That requires political will, legislative time, and the ability to overcome entrenched interests.
Voted programs get annual review—but in practice, most spending continues year over year with incremental adjustments.
Our member asked for “value for dollar” reporting and economic multiplier analysis before distributions are made.
Currently, no systematic mechanism requires this.
The Main Estimates show how much money each department requests. They don’t show:
- Cost per outcome achieved
- Comparison to private sector efficiency
- Results versus original projections
- Citizen satisfaction with services received
Think of it this way: the Martinez family can see that $24,767 of tax revenue is allocated in their name. But they cannot easily verify whether that money generated $24,767 worth of value.
In low-trust environments, systems that can’t show value don’t survive.
Monday, we’ll examine what value for dollar actually looks like—and why the numbers suggest taxpayers are paying premium prices for standard results.