Canadians should decide what to do with their money—not politicians and bureaucrats

Since taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government has expanded the federal government’s role in making decisions for individuals and families, rather than letting Canadians decide on their own. And with its latest federal budget, which it tabled last week, it once again decided that politicians and bureaucrats should determine what people want and need, rather than the people themselves.

Indeed, during its tenure the Trudeau government has introduced a slew of new programs (e.g. national dental care, $10-a-day day care), which have contributed to an expected $227.4 billion increase in annual federal program spending (total spending minus debt interest costs) from 2014/15 to 2024/25. And according to the budget, due to new programs such as national pharmacare, annual program spending will increase by another $58.4 billion by 2028/29.

In many cases the impetus for these new programs has been to increase people’s access to certain goods and services (most of which were already provided privately). But the Trudeau government has consistently ignored the fact that there are always two ways for the government to help provide a good or service—tax and spend to directly provide it, or lower taxes and leave more money in people’s pockets so they can make their own decisions—and instead simply opted for more government.

Consequently, Canadians now pay higher taxes. In 2014/15 (the year before Prime Minister Trudeau was elected), total federal revenues represented 14.0 per cent of the economy (as measured by GDP) compared to 16.6 per cent in 2024/25—meaning taxes have grown faster than the economy.

More specifically, the total tax bill (including income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and more) of the average Canadian family has increased from 44.7 per cent of its income in 2015 to 46.1 per cent in 2023. That means the average family must work five extra days to pay off the additional tax burden.

And families are feeling the burden. According to polling data, 74 per cent of Canadians believe the average family is overtaxed. And while the Trudeau government did introduce tax changes in 2016 for middle-income families, research shows that 86 per cent of these families ended up paying higher taxes as a result. Why? Because while the government reduced the second-lowest federal personal income tax rate from 22.0 to 20.5 per cent, it simultaneously eliminated several tax credits, which effectively raised taxes on families that previously claimed these credits.

Finally, many Canadians don’t believe their tax dollars are being put to good use. When polled, only 16 per cent of Canadians said they receive good or great value for their tax dollars while 44 per cent said they receive poor or very poor value.

Simply put, the Trudeau government has consistently empowered politicians and bureaucrats to decide how Canadians should use their hard-earned money, rather than allowing individuals and families to make those decisions. With its 2024 budget, once again the Trudeau government has demonstrated its belief that it knows best.

Authors:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#2024FederalBudget #FraserInstitute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss

Up Next

UN plastics plans are unscientific and unrealistic

Don't Miss

Activity-Based Hospital Funding in Alberta: Insights from Quebec and Australia

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Red tape is killing Canadian housing affordability

Crime / 7 hours ago

Trump ‘100%’ supports designating Antifa a domestic terror organization

illegal immigration / 7 hours ago

Biden admin freed illegal alien now accused of decapitating boss

Business

Carney’s ‘major projects’ list no cause for celebration

Published on September 16, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen

Early in his term, Prime Minister Mark Carney placed great emphasis on the need to think big and move quickly, to make Canada the “world’s leading energy superpower.” Recently, the government announced the first group of projects to be championed by its new Major Projects Office (MPO), which was also recently created to circumvent existing rules and regulations to speed up approvals. Unfortunately, the list of projects is decidedly underwhelming, which highlights the need for a true course correction when it comes to fixing Canada’s investment crisis.

According to the government, the purpose of the Major Projects Office is to fast-track “nation building” projects, with a focus on regulatory approvals and financing. Yet, of the first five projects referred to the MPO, regulatory approvals have largely already been secured and the projects were likely to proceed without any intervention or assistance from Ottawa.

For example, many of the regulatory approvals required for the Darlington Small Nuclear Reactor are already in place, and construction has already begun. The McIlvenna Bay copper mine in Saskatchewan is already half-built.

Other projects, such as LNG Phase 2 and the Red Chris Copper Mine, both in British Columbia, are expansions of existing facilities and are backed by industry-leading firms such as Shell and Rio Tinto, respectively. In general, these projects do not need government assistance or financing since they’re already largely approved.

A further six projects being referred to the MPO are at an earlier stage of development, and for the most part do not yet require regulatory approvals. Carney has referred this list—which includes projects ranging from carbon capture to high speed rail to offshore wind—to the MPO to be matched with government “business development teams” to “advance these concepts.”

These initiatives parallel the approach by the Trudeau government to rely on government-directed projects to foster economic growth, which failed miserably. The Trudeau government’s economic policies featured a much larger role for government in the economy, including a general increase in the size and scope of the federal government, as measured by increased spending and regulation. The result? Under Trudeau, annual growth of per-person GDP (an indicator of living standards) was just 0.3 per cent, the worst track record of any recent prime minister. Net business investment (foreign direct investment in Canada minus Canadian direct investment abroad) declined by $388 billion between 2015 and 2023 (the latest year of available data).

To set Canada on a course to reverse the investment crisis, Carney must abandon the notion of government-directed economic growth. Approving projects already largely approved, while sending other less-certain projects to government business development bureaucrats, will not fix Canada’s problem. Simply put, the government should craft policy to create the right conditions for investment and entrepreneurship for all firms in all sectors of the economy, not simply its chosen winners.

To attract the kinds of major projects that will meaningfully improve Canada’s investment crisis, the Carney government should eliminate a host of regulations and reform those that survive. As other analysts have noted, the list of regulatory hurdles in Canada is long. Canada’s total regulatory load has increased substantially over time and across a wide range of industries including energy, autos, child care, supermarkets and more.

Nowhere is this more evident than the energy industry, which is one of the largest drivers of investment in Canada. Federal Bills C-69 and C-48 (which govern the project approval process and ban oil tankers on the west cost, respectively), alongside the federal greenhouse gas emissions cap, net-zero policies, and a host of other regulation such as new fuel standard have significantly constrained this industry, which is vital to Canada’s economic success.

Canada’s regulatory explosion has effectively decimated the country’s investment climate. While Bill C-5 allows cabinet to circumvent these regulations, it places the cabinet, and more specifically the prime minister, in the position of picking winners and losers. Broad-based tax and regulatory reduction and reform would be a much more effective approach.

Canada continues to struggle amid an investment crisis that’s holding back economic growth and living standards. Our country needs bold changes to the policy environment conducive to attracting more investment. The government’s response to date, through Bill C-5 and the MPO, involves making the government more, not less, involved in the economy. The government should reverse course.

Business

Carney government’s housing GST rebate doesn’t go far enough

Published on September 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Austin Thompson

While there are many reasons for Canada’s housing affordability crisis, taxes on new homes—including the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST)—remain a major culprit. The Carney government is currently advancing legislation that would rebate GST on some new home purchases, but only for a narrow slice of the market, falling short of what’s needed to improve affordability. A broader GST rebate, extending to more homebuyers and more new homes, would cost Ottawa more, but it would likely deliver better results than the billions the Carney government plans to spend on other housing-related programs.

Today, Ottawa already offers some GST relief for new housing: partial rebates for homes under $450,000, full rebates for small-scale rental units (e.g. condos, townhomes, duplexes) valued under $450,000, and a full rebate for large-scale rental buildings (with no price cap). Rebates can lower costs for homebuyers and encourage more homebuilding. However, at today’s high prices, these rebate programs mean most new homes, and many small-scale rental projects, remain burdened by federal GST.

The Carney government’s new proposal would offer a full GST rebate for new homes—but only for first-time homebuyers purchasing a primary residence at under $1 million (a partial rebate would be available for homes up to $1.5 million). Any tax cut on new housing is welcome, but these criteria are arbitrary and will limit the policy’s impact.

Firstly, by restricting the new GST rebate to first-time buyers, the government ignores how housing markets work. If a retired couple downsizes into a new condo, or a growing family upgrades to a bigger house, they typically free up their previous home for someone else to buy or rent. It doesn’t matter whether the new home is purchased by a first-time buyer—all buyers can benefit when a new home appears on the market.

Secondly, by limiting the GST rebate to primary residences, the government won’t reduce the existing tax burden on rental properties—recall, many small-scale projects still face the full GST burden. Extending the rebate to include rental properties would reduce costs, unlock more construction and expand options for renters.

Thirdly, because the proposed GST rebate only applies in-full to homes under $1 million, it will have little effect in Canada’s most expensive cities. For example, in the first half of 2025, 31.8 per cent of new homes sold in Toronto and 27.4 per cent in Vancouver exceeded $1 million. Taxing these homes discourages homebuilding where it’s most needed.

Altogether, these restrictions mean the Carney proposal would help very few Canadians. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the 237,324 housing units projected to be completed in 2026—the first full year of the proposed GST rebate program—only 12,903 (5.4 per cent) would qualify for the new rebate. With such limited coverage, the policy is unlikely to spur much new housing or improve affordability.

The proposed GST rebate will cost a projected $390 million per year. However, if the Carney government went further and expanded the rebate to cover all new homes under $1.3 million, it would cost about $2 billion. That’s a big price tag, especially given Ottawa’s strained finances, but it would do much more to improve housing affordability.

Instead, the Carney government plans to spend $3 billion annually on “Build Canada Homes”—a misguided federal entity set to compete with private builders for scarce construction resources. The government has earmarked another $1.5 billion per year to subsidize municipal fees on new housing projects—an approach that merely shift costs from city halls to Ottawa. A broader GST rebate would likely be a more effective, lower-risk alternative to these programs.

Finally, it’s important to note that exempting new homes from GST is not a slam dunk. GST is one of the more efficient ways for the federal government to raise revenue, since it doesn’t discourage work or investment as much as other taxes. GST rebates mean the government may increase more economically harmful taxes to recoup the lost revenue. Still, tax relief is a better way to increase housing affordability than the Carney government’s expensive spending programs. In fact, the government should also reform other federal taxes on housing-related capital gains and rental income to help encourage more homebuilding.

The Carney government’s proposed GST rebate is a step in the right direction, but it’s too narrow to meaningfully boost supply or ease affordability. If Ottawa is prepared to spend billions on questionable programs such as “Build Canada Homes,” it should first consider a more expansive GST rebate on new home purchases, which would likely do more to help Canadian homebuyers.