Federal government cranked up spending up but Canadians are worse off

“If spending money like water was the answer to our country’s problems,” Margaret Thatcher said in 1980, less than two years after the United Kingdom’s Winter of Discontent, “we would have no problems now. If ever a nation has spent, spent, spent, and spent again, ours has.” That a government cannot spend away the country’s problems is a clear lesson of history. The Trudeau government evidently has not learned this—it has spent, spent and spent more, and the country’s problems have gotten worse.

In 2014-15, before the Liberals took office, federal program spending was 12.8 per cent of GDP (the value of final goods and services produced in Canada). In 2023-24, it’s projected at 15.7 per cent. And relative to 2014-15, annual program spending is $89 billion higher than if it had tracked with overall economic growth.

As Thatcher would have predicted, this extra spending has not solved most problems. Consider health care. The Fraser Institute’s survey of health-care specialists found a median wait time of 27.7 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment in 2023—a 51 per cent increase versus the 18.3 weeks in 2015. Relative to peer countries, Canada is a big health-care spender but with poor results, and is far below average on key metrics such as physicians and hospital beds per capita.

Another big spending area is climate change. The Liberals boast of pouring more than $120 billion into climate programs, but even with an annually increasing carbon tax and onerous regulation on top of that spending, the government is on track to miss its 2030 climate targets. Given the high cost of its climate policies relative to environmental benefits, that’s not a bad thing. Ottawa’s climate targets are wildly unrealistic, and achieving them would mean devastating the economy further.

Speaking of devasting the economy, when the Trudeau government spends, it claims it will support economic growth, increase affordability or otherwise deliver financial benefits. Eight years in, these benefits have not materialized. As of the third quarter of 2023, after five consecutive quarters of declining real GDP per capita, Canada’s cumulative growth in the past eight years is a paltry 1.6 per cent versus 14.7 per cent in the United States. One way to think about this gap: if Canada’s real GDP per-capita growth tracked with the U.S. since the Liberals took office, Canadian living standards would be about 12.8 per cent higher than they are today.

Finally, the Trudeau government has significantly ramped up child-care spending, but the effect of the national child-care program has been to severely distort and in many cases destroy the child-care sector by applying a discriminatory funding model that pushes child-care entrepreneurs out of the market and discourages private investment. The federal program is composed of separate agreements with the provinces, but with the child-care sector suffering crisis and widespread shortages from coast to coast, it’s reasonable to conclude Ottawa’s plan is fatally flawed.

Wherever you look, the pattern is the same—federal spending is up, but outcomes are worse. The government creates problems and does not solve them when it spends money like water. Margaret Thatcher well understood this fact. Justin Trudeau, unfortunately, evidently does not.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

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

Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich says ‘I am not to leave the house’ while serving sentence

International / 4 hours ago

Poland’s president signs new zero income tax law for parents with two children 

National / 5 hours ago

Poilievre accuses Canada’s top police force of ‘covering up’ alleged Trudeau crimes

Business

Federal Budget 2025: A responsible media would ensure Canadians know about the dismal state of federal finance

Published on October 17, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

From 2014 to 2024, gross government debt (including federal, provincial and local governments) increased from 85.5 per cent of the economy (measured by GDP) to 110.8 per cent—a larger increase than any other G7 country. When debt grows faster than the economy, government finances are unsustainable.

Ahead of the Carney government’s long-awaited first budget scheduled for Nov. 4, a recent CBC commentary described the long-standing debate about the federal deficit and the state of federal finances as “something of a phoney war.” And that calls to balance the budget—expressed today and over the last decade—have lacked any serious discussion about the trade-offs between allowing deficits to persist versus balancing the budget.

While there’s certainly something to be said about the political theatre that regularly dominates the House of Commons—which we agree focuses too often on scoring political points instead of adequately assessing the merits of policy—it’s wrong to downplay concerns about the state of federal finances. Such concerns aren’t “phoney.”

Consider this. From 2014 to 2024, gross government debt (including federal, provincial and local governments) increased from 85.5 per cent of the economy (measured by GDP) to 110.8 per cent—a larger increase than any other G7 country. And federal gross debt increased from 53.0 per cent of the economy in 2014/15 to a projected 70.0 per cent in 2024/25. When debt grows faster than the economy, government finances are unsustainable. And the Carney government seemingly plans to continue this same approach.

In other words, the government plans to continue to spend more than it collects in revenue, continue to run massive deficits, and continue to rack up large amounts of debt.

Why should Canadians care?

Because the costs of government debt land squarely on their backs. For example, when government debt levels rise, the cost of debt interest often also rises. This year the federal government will spend a projected $54.5 billion on debt interest costs—equivalent to what it sends to the provinces for health care. Moreover, when governments borrow money, they can help drive up the cost of borrowing by increasing demand for the limited pool of savings that both government and the private sector compete for—making it more expensive for a family to take out a mortgage or businesses to attract investments. And to pay for today’s debt accumulation, governments in the future may raise taxes—a burden that will fall disproportionately on younger generations.

Again, given this alarming deterioration in the state of government finances over the last decade and the costs it imposes on Canadians, there’s nothing disingenuous about calling for more fiscal discipline from Ottawa.

Of course, getting federal finances back in order is no small task—the Trudeau government’s forays into areas of provincial jurisdiction (which carry huge price tags), combined with Carney’s massive new spending commitments for defence and other programs, mean the government cannot balance the budget without significant trade-offs. In the past, the federal government has overcome similar fiscal circumstances by committing to balance the budget and outlining a clear plan to achieve this goal. The Carney government should heed these lessons and apply them in its upcoming budget.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta taxpayers should know how much their municipal governments spend

Published on October 16, 2025

Todayville Content Team

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

Next week, voters across Alberta will go to the polls to elect their local governments. Of course, while the issues vary depending on the city, town or district, all municipal governments spend taxpayer money.

And according to a recent study, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County were among Alberta’s highest-spending municipalities (on a per-person basis) in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data). Kara Westerlund, president of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, said that’s no surprise—arguing that it’s expensive to serve a small number of residents spread over large areas.

That challenge is real. In rural areas, fewer people share the cost of roads, parks and emergency services. But high spending isn’t inevitable. Some rural municipalities managed to spend far less, demonstrating that local choices about what services to provide, and how to deliver them, matter.

Consider the contrast in spending levels among rural counties. In 2023, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County spent $5,413 and $4,619 per person, respectively. Foothills County, by comparison, spent just $2,570 per person. All three counties have relatively low population densities (fewer than seven residents per square kilometre) yet their per-person spending varies widely. (In case you’re wondering, Calgary spent $3,144 and Edmonton spent $3,241.)

Some of that variation reflects differences in the cost of similar services. For example, all three counties provide fire protection but in 2023 this service cost $56.95 per person in Grande Prairie County, $38.51 in Red Deer County and $10.32 in Foothills County. Other spending differences reflect not just how much is spent, but whether a service is offered at all. For instance, in 2023 Grande Prairie County recorded $46,283 in daycare spending, while Red Deer County and Foothills County had none.

Put simply, population density alone simply doesn’t explain why some municipalities spend more than others. Much depends on the choices municipal governments make and how efficiently they deliver services.

Westerlund also dismissed comparisons showing that some counties spend more per person than nearby towns and cities, calling them “apples to oranges.” It’s true that rural municipalities and cities differ—but that doesn’t make comparisons meaningless. After all, whether apples are a good deal depends on the price of other fruit, and a savvy shopper might switch to oranges if they offer better value. In the same way, comparing municipal spending—across all types of communities—helps Albertans judge whether they get good value for their tax dollars.

Every municipality offers a different mix of services and those choices come with different price tags. Consider three nearby municipalities: in 2023, Rockyview County spent $3,419 per person, Calgary spent $3,144 and Airdrie spent $2,187. These differences reflect real trade-offs in the scope, quality and cost of local services. Albertans should decide for themselves which mix of local services best suits their needs—but they can’t do that without clear data on what those services actually cost.

A big municipal tax bill isn’t an inevitable consequence of rural living. How much gets spent in each Alberta municipality depends greatly on the choices made by the mayors, reeves and councillors Albertans will elect next week. And for Albertans to determine whether or not they get good value for their local tax dollars, they must know how much their municipality is spending.