Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

2025 Federal Election

Does Canada Need a DOGE?

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Philip Cross

The legions of Canadians wanting to see government spending shrink probably look enviously at how Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is slashing some government programs in the United States, even if DOGE’s non-surgical chainsaw approach is controversial, to say the least.

Some problems are common to cutting any government’s spending. Ironclad job security for union employees with seniority means cuts are skewed disproportionately to junior staff still on probation, with the regrettable side effect of denying an injection of fresh blood into a sclerotic workforce. Cutting employees and not programs makes it easier for higher staffing to resume: as documented by Carleton University Professor Ian Lee in How Ottawa Spends, even prolonged bouts of austerity do not derail government spending from long-term trend of higher growth. Across the board cuts do not allow for the surgical removal of redundant or inefficient programs and poor performing employees.

Canada has some unique problems with federal government spending. Savoie documents how 41 per cent of federal civil servants are located in Ottawa, versus 16 per cent in Washington and 19 per cent in London, despite Canada having the most decentralized federation in the G7. The concentration in Ottawa partly reflects the exceptional influence exerted by central agencies on all departments. As well, University of Cambridge Professor Dennis Grube found Canada’s civil service was the most resistant to public scrutiny and the most risk adverse in a comparative study of public servants in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Canada’s federal employees are among the most expensive anywhere. The average civil servant costs taxpayers $146,500 a year including all salary, benefits and costs such as computers and training. Multiplying this average cost by 366,316 federal employees yields a total labour bill of $53.7 billion, not including other spending such as $17.8 billion on consultants. All the recent increase in the ranks of the civil service happened in Justin Trudeau’s tenure, expanding 38.5 per cent after Stephen Harper had cut them 9 per cent between 2010 and 2015 in his determination to balance the budget.

While the cost of government employees has risen sharply, the services they provide to the public are dwindling as government spending increasingly is devoted to managing its unwieldy and bloated bureaucracy. As Savoie observes, unions like to paint civil servants as providing essential services such as food inspectors and rescue workers, when in reality most are involved in a vast web of “policy, coordination, liaison, and performance evaluation units.” The fastest growing occupations in the federal government are in administrative services and program administration, whose share of jobs rose from 25.1 per cent in 2010 to 31.9 per cent in 2023 according to the latest report from the Treasury Board.

A chronic problem is the fierce defense offered by public service unions in “protecting non-performers and insulating the public sector from effective outside scrutiny” as Savoie wrote. The refusal to acknowledge and root out non-performers depresses the morale of the average civil servant who’s unfairly tarred with the reputation of a minority. It also motivates the across-the-board chainsaw approach of DOGE, which critics then decry as not discriminating between good and bad employees. The latter could easily be targeted by senior managers, who know exactly who the non-performers are but cannot be bothered with the years of documentation and bureaucratic headaches needed to get rid of them. The cost of poor performers is substantial; if even 10 per cent of the civil service was eliminated as redundant non-performers, the government would save $5.4 billion a year. Potential savings are likely well over $10 billion.

The federal government potentially has enormous leverage in negotiating civil service pay and getting rid of non-performers, because it can unilaterally change the federal pension plan without negotiating with public-sector unions. The federal pension plan is so generous that it’s referred to as the “golden handcuffs” that tie employees to their jobs irrespective of their pay or working conditions. To protect their lucrative pensions, unions inevitably would be willing to make concessions that substantially lower the burden on Canada’s taxpayers and still improve morale within the civil service.

Philip Cross

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

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

2025 Federal Election

Post election report indicates Canadian elections are becoming harder to secure

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault highlights strong participation and secure voting, but admits minority politics, rising costs, and administrative pressures are testing the system’s limits.

Monday in Ottawa, Stéphane Perrault, Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, delivered a long press conference on April’s federal election. It was supposed to be a victory lap, record turnout, record early voting, a secure process. But if you listened closely, you heard something else: an admission that Canada’s election machinery is faltering, stretched thin by a system politicians refuse to fix.

Perrault touted the highest turnout in 30 years, 69 percent of eligible voters, nearly 20 million Canadians. Almost half of those ballots were cast before election day, a dramatic shift in how citizens take part in democracy.

“Twenty years ago, less than 7% voted early. This year, nearly half did,” Perrault told reporters. “Our system may have reached its limit.”

That’s the core problem. The system was built for one decisive day, not weeks of advance voting spread across campuses, long-term care homes, mail-in ballots, and local Elections Canada offices. It’s no longer a single event; it’s an extended process that stretches the capacity of staff, polling locations, and administration.

Perrault admitted bluntly that the 36-day writ period, the time between when an election is called and when the vote happens, may no longer be workable. “If we don’t have a fixed date election, the current time frame does not allow for the kind of service preparations that is required,” he said.

And this is where politics collides with logistics. Canada is once again under a minority government, which means an election can be triggered at almost any moment. A non-confidence vote in the House of Commons, where opposition parties withdraw support from the government, can bring down Parliament in an instant. That’s not a flaw in the system; it’s how parliamentary democracy works. But it leaves Elections Canada on permanent standby, forced to prepare for a snap election without knowing when the writ will drop.

The result? Sixty percent of voter information cards were mailed late this year because Elections Canada couldn’t finalize leases for polling stations on time. Imagine that, more than half the country got their voting information delayed because the system is clogged. And that’s when everything is supposedly working.

The April election cost an estimated $570 million, almost identical to 2021 in today’s dollars. But here’s the kicker: Elections Canada also spent $203 million just to stay ready during three years of minority Parliament. That’s not democracy on the cheap. That’s bureaucracy on retainer.

Perrault admitted as much: “We had a much longer readiness period. That’s the reality of minority governments.”

No Foreign Interference… But Plenty of ‘Misinformation’

Canada’s top election official wanted to make something perfectly clear: “There were no acts of foreign interference targeting the administration of the electoral process.” That’s the line. And it’s a good one… reassuring, simple, the kind of phrase meant to make headlines and calm nerves.

But listen closely to the wording. He didn’t say there was no interference at all. He said none of it targeted the administration of the vote. Which raises the obvious question: what interference did occur, and who was behind it?

Perrault admitted there was “more volume than ever” of misinformation circulating during the 2025 election. He listed the greatest hits: rumors that Elections Canada gives voters pencils so ballots can be erased, or claims that non-citizens were voting. These are hardly new — they’ve appeared in the U.S. and in Europe too. The difference, he said, is scale. In 2025, Canadians saw those narratives across more channels, more platforms, more communities than ever before.

This is where things get interesting. Because the way Perrault framed it wasn’t that a rogue actor or a foreign intelligence service was pushing disinformation. He was blunt: this was a domestic problem as much as anything else. In his words, “whether foreign or not,” manipulation of information poses the “single biggest risk to our democracy.”

Perrault insists the real danger isn’t foreign hackers or ballot-stuffing but Canadians themselves, ordinary people raising questions online. “Information manipulation, whether foreign or not, poses the single biggest risk to our democracy,” he said.

Well, maybe he should look in the mirror. If Canadians are skeptical of the system, maybe it’s because the people running it haven’t done enough to earn their trust. It took years for Ottawa to even acknowledge the obvious , that foreign actors were meddling in our politics long before this election. Endless commissions and closed-door reports later, we’re told to stop asking questions and accept that everything is secure.

Meanwhile, what gets fast-tracked? Not a comprehensive fix to protect our democracy, but a criminal investigation into a journalist. Keean Bexte, co-founder of JUNO News, is facing prosecution under Section 91(1) of the Canada Elections Act for his reporting on allegations against Liberal candidate Thomas Keeper. The maximum penalty? A $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison. His reporting, incidentally, was sourced, corroborated, and so credible that the Liberal Party quietly dropped Keeper from its candidate list.

If people doubt the system, it isn’t because they’re gullible or “misinformed.” It’s because the government has treated transparency as an afterthought and accountability as an inconvenience. And Perrault knows it. Canadians aren’t children to be scolded for asking questions, they’re citizens who expect straight answers.

But instead of fixing the cracks in the system, Ottawa points the finger at the public. Instead of rebuilding trust, they prosecute journalists.

You don’t restore faith in democracy by threatening reporters with five years in prison. You do it by showing, quickly and openly, that elections are beyond reproach. Until then, spare us the lectures about “misinformation.” Canadians can see exactly where the problem lies, and it isn’t with them.

The Takeaway

Of course, they’re patting themselves on the back. Record turnout, no servers hacked, the trains ran mostly on time. Fine. But what they don’t want to admit is that the system barely held together. It was propped up by 230,000 temporary workers, leases signed at the last minute, and hundreds of millions spent just to keep the lights on. That’s not stability. That’s triage.

And then there’s the lecturing tone. Perrault tells us the real threat isn’t incompetence in Ottawa, it’s you, Canadians “sharing misinformation.” Excuse me? Canadians asking questions about their elections aren’t a threat to democracy, they are democracy. If the government can’t handle people poking holes in its story, maybe the problem isn’t the questions, maybe it’s the answers.

So yes, on paper, the 2025 election looked like a triumph. But listen closely and you hear the sound of a system cracking under pressure, led by officials more interested in controlling the narrative than earning your trust. And when the people running your elections think the real danger is the voters themselves? That’s when you know the elastic isn’t just stretched. It’s about to snap.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

NDP’s collapse rightly cost them official party status

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Michael Taube

Official party status requires 12 seats. The NDP got seven. End of story

Rules are rules.

That, in a nutshell, is why the NDP wasn’t granted official party status in the House of Commons on Monday. Prime Minister Mark Carney and the
Liberals, to their credit, made the right decision.

Let’s examine why.

The 1963 Senate and House of Commons Act passed an amendment that gave an annual allowance to party leaders other than the prime minister and
leader of the Opposition. In doing so, the Canadian government had to establish what constitutes a “political party.” The definition they came up with was a sensible one: it had to have a “recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons.”

This important amendment is still used today.

The NDP fell from 24 to a paltry seven seats in last month’s federal election. (There are a total of 343 seats in the House of Commons.) They finished with 1,234,673 votes, or 6.29 per cent, which was behind the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Québécois. Party leader Jagmeet Singh, who had represented the former Burnaby South riding since 2019, finished a distant third in the newly created Burnaby Central riding and resigned.

The NDP’s seven seats is well below the 12-seat requirement needed for official party status. This means Canada’s socialist alternative won’t be able to ask questions in the House of Commons and will lose out on money for research purposes.

Or, to put it another way, they’re plumb out of luck.

Hold on, some people said. They pointed out that the NDP’s seat count and popular vote only plummeted because many progressive voters backed Carney and the Liberals as the best option to counter U.S. President Donald Trump and his tariffs. They felt that the NDP’s long history as a champion for unions and the working class should count for something. They suggested there should be an exception to the rule.

Guess what? They’re wrong.

This is the worst election result in the party’s history. Even its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), did marginally better in its first campaign. The CCF won seven out of 245 seats—and earned 410,125 votes, or 9.31 per cent—in the 1935 election. Party leader J.S. Woodsworth, who had represented the riding of Winnipeg North Centre as an Independent Labour MP since 1925, comfortably held his seat.

Meanwhile, this won’t be the first time they’ve ever lost official party status.

The NDP dropped from 43 to nine seats in the 1993 election. It was a dismal showing, to say the least. There was a suggestion at the time that then-party leader Audrey McLaughlin, the first woman to lead a party with political representation in Canada’s House of Commons, deserved a better fate. While the NDP certainly came closer to achieving the 12-seat requirement in this particular election, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Liberals decided against granting them official party status.

Why? As I mentioned earlier, rules are rules.

Then again, British pilot Harry Day notably told his fellow flying ace Douglas Bader in 1931, “You know my views about some regulations—they’re written for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”

Does this mean that individuals and organizations who follow rules are, in fact, fools? Not at all. While certain rules in a liberal democratic society can range from slightly questionable to utterly ridiculous, they’re usually put in place for a specific purpose.

In the case of the House of Commons, it’s to ensure that a bar has been set with respect to political representation. Is 12 seats the right number? That’s difficult to say. It certainly prevents small protest parties and one-issue parties that unexpectedly win a tiny number of seats in an election from acquiring power and status right off the bat. They need to win more seats and grow in size and stature to reach a point of respectability. Most of them never reach this point and disappear while others float in a constant state of mediocrity like the Green Party of Canada. ’Tis the nature of the political beast.

One final point. If Singh and the NDP had reached double digits in total number of seats in 2025, a solid case could have been made in favour of official party status. If they had finished with 11 seats, it would have almost been a lock. Neither scenario ultimately materialized, which is why Carney and the Liberals did exactly what they did.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X