Misleading polls may produce more damaging federal policies

72 per cent of respondents in Canada supported a new narrowly-targeted tax on wealth for the top 1 per cent to pay for new government services and/or a guaranteed annual income. But support dropped to only 16 per cent when the plan relied on increasing the GST to 20 per cent. The implications of the data are clear—Canadians support new and expanded programs when they believe someone else will pay for them.

In the wake of the 2024 federal budget, several public opinion polls have been released with potential implications for the future direction of federal policy. But unless the polls are interpreted correctly, the results could be misconstrued and lead to further damaging federal policies.

Most polls continue to show the federal Opposition significantly outperforming the governing Liberals and their partners in government, the NDP. Moreover, polls completed after the Trudeau government released the federal budget earlier this month indicate Canadians generally do not agree with the overall policy direction of the Trudeau government.

For example, according to a recent Leger poll, 56 per cent of Canadians believe the country is “headed in the wrong direction,” 59 per cent “perceive the economy as weaker,” only 19 per cent agree the government’s strategy “will benefit their personal finances,” and only 33 per cent believe the government is “taking positive steps to grow the Canadian economy.”

These results align with a recent Angus Reid poll, which found that 59 per cent of respondents think federal spending had grown too large and spending cuts were needed.

A number of pollsters, however, have noted the gulf between the overall lack of support for federal policies (including the recent budget) and strong support for individual initiatives in the budget. According to the Leger poll, for instance, 73 per cent of respondents support the new $6 billion Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund, 71 per cent support the new National School Food Program, and 67 per cent support the new $15 billion Apartment Construction Loan Program.

But these results are misleading because they only reflect one side of the question—the benefits. In other words, the polls ask respondents if they support specific programs but exclude any costs. When Canadians understand the costs, their attitudes change. They’re concerned about the level of federal spending because they see the costs—rising taxes, mounting debt and increasing interest costs.

Not surprisingly, when pollsters connect new or expanded programs with their costs, support for those programs declines. Consider a 2022 Leger poll that asked respondents about their support for pharmacare, dental care and the federal $10-a-day daycare program.

Support for the three programs is strong when no costs are attached: 79 per cent for pharmacare, 72 per cent for dental care and 69 per cent for daycare. But the level of support plummets when an increase in the GST is attached to the new program. Support for pharmacare drops to 40 per cent, support for dental care drops to 42 per cent, and daycare support drops to 36 per cent.

This general idea of supporting programs—when someone else pays for them—aligns with a 2022 poll, which found that 72 per cent of respondents in Canada supported a new narrowly-targeted tax on wealth for the top 1 per cent to pay for new government services and/or a guaranteed annual income. But support dropped to only 16 per cent when the plan relied on increasing the GST to 20 per cent. The implications of the data are clear—Canadians support new and expanded programs when they believe someone else will pay for them.

This is an important consideration because the Trudeau government has borrowed to pay for most of its new and expanded programs, meaning that the effect of the new spending would be more apparent if the government raised taxes—rather than borrowed—to pay for it. The costs of the government’s approach, however, are showing up in Ottawa’s debt interest costs, which this year will reach a projected $54.1 billion—more than the federal government spends on health-care transfers to the provinces.

As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman said, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. When polling data treat new and expanded programs as costless, they provide misleading results and policy signals to politicians. It’s essential that policymakers understand the degree to which Canadians—after they understand the costs—actually support these initiatives.

Authors:

Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

Related Topics:#FederalTaxPolls #FraserInstitute #JakeFuss #JasonClemens #MisleadingFederalProgramPolls #MisleadingTaxPolls

Up Next

Trump campaign says he will pardon Jan. 6 prisoners on ‘case-by-case basis’ if re-elected

Don't Miss

Quebec’s ban on gender-neutral bathrooms in schools is good news

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

RFK Jr. planning new restrictions on drug advertising: report

International / 2 hours ago

Judiciary explores accountability options over Biden decline ‘coverup’

Business / 8 hours ago

Canada’s critical minerals are key to negotiating with Trump

International

Judiciary explores accountability options over Biden decline ‘coverup’

Published on June 18, 2025

Todayville

Former President Joe Biden salutes the departure party before boarding Special Air Mission 46 at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Jan. 20, 2025.

By Staff Sgt. Gabrielle Winn | U.S. Air Force photo

From The Center Square

By Morgan Sweeney

No obvious solutions emerged during a congressional hearing Wednesday on how to hold those accountable for the alleged cover-up of President Joe Biden’s mental and cognitive decline, but witnesses had some suggestions for how to prevent similar situations in the future.

Republicans have been adamant for some time that Democratic lawmakers, the prior administration, the legacy media and those closest to Biden conspired to hide the former president’s mental and cognitive decline from the American people. More recently, allegations have surfaced that some of Biden’s staff or potentially others may have used an autopen – a machine that can replicate signatures – to sign official documents for Biden without his knowledge or consent.

From the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 18th, 2025

Wednesday’s witnesses agreed that further investigation needs to be done into these questions. Republicans also explored what can be done after the fact and how to prevent similar events from happening in the future. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing into those questions Wednesday’s boycotted by all but one Democrat.

Republicans didn’t miss the opportunity to call them out for it. U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-MO, said Democrats’ absence and their failure to call any witnesses to testify was “deeply disappointing” but “not surprising.”

“Their absence speaks volumes – an implicit admission that the truth is too inconvenient to face,” Schmitt said. “This de facto boycott is not just a refusal to participate. It’s a refusal to serve the American people who deserve answers about who was truly leading their government.”

From the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 18th, 2025

Much of the hearing’s discussion revolved around proper uses of the autopen, which witnesses testified can only be rightfully used when the president specifically delegates its use to the user. The committee also discussed Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which talks about succession in the case of a president becoming unfit or unable to fulfill the role. The amendment authorizes the vice president and a majority of the president’s cabinet to declare the president unfit, though that declaration has to be validated by a vote from Congress in order to have any effect.

What’s missing, however, is a clear manner of recourse for lawmakers or the public if those around the president fail to act despite plain signs he is incapable of holding office. Republicans wanted to know what they could do to prevent the alleged conspiracy from simply fading into history without consequences for any involved.

“As a government, it is imperative that we have clear contingency plans when emergency strikes, and yes, it is an emergency when we have a sitting president who is unable to discharge the duties of that office,” said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX.

He asked witness Theo Wold, a visiting fellow for law and technology policy with The Heritage Foundation and who worked in the previous Trump administration, if any criminal statutes could be applied to those who are found to have participated in the alleged cover-up.

“In this case, some have suggested that there may be potential crimes committed by members of the Cabinet for failing to act basically, suborning perjury, forging, forging government documents, impersonating a federal officer, making false statements, conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of justice, wire or mail fraud… Do you think there’s any application of any of those criminal statutes to the circumstances of the Biden presidency?” Cornyn asked.

“There very well could be,” Wold said, but he added that it would be “a question for a prosecutor to take up in their discretion.”

While witnesses agreed that anyone participating in a cover-up should be held accountable, the solutions for doing so weren’t as clear as recommendations for how to prevent similar situations in the future.

John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, didn’t see an obvious method of redress for what already happened but suggested that Congress perhaps require greater documentation of presidential actions going forward.

Wold provided additional suggestions, such as a revival of discussion around “other guardrails” that can be imposed on the 25th Amendment. There was lively debate toward the end of Ronald Reagan’s presidency about adding a mental health professional to the White House medical team or “whether the surgeon general should oversee the inclusion of medical reporting as part of… the 25th Amendment,” according to Wold. But he said there hadn’t been serious discussion since on how to improve the amendment. He also agreed with Sen. Katie Britt, R-AL, that some of the terms in the amendment, like “unable,” should be more clearly defined.

Morgan Sweeney

Staff Reporter

Business

Canada’s critical minerals are key to negotiating with Trump

Published on June 18, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

The United States wants to break its reliance on China for minerals, giving Canada a distinct advantage.

Trade issues were top of mind when United States President Donald Trump landed in Kananaskis, Alberta, for the G7 Summit. As he was met by Prime Minister Mark Carney, Canada’s vast supply of critical minerals loomed large over a potential trade deal between North America’s two largest countries.

Although Trump’s appearance at the G7 Summit was cut short by the outbreak of open hostilities between Iran and Israel, the occasion still marked a turning point in commercial and economic relations between Canada and the U.S. Whether they worsen or improve remains to be seen, but given Trump’s strategy of breaking American dependence on China for critical minerals, Canada is in a favourable position.

Despite the president’s early exit, he and Prime Minister Carney signed an accord that pledged to strike a Canada-US trade deal within 30 days.

Canada’s minerals are a natural advantage during trade talks due to the rise in worldwide demand for them. Without the minerals that Canada can produce and export, it is impossible to power modern industries like defence, renewable energy, and electric vehicles (EV).

Nickel, gallium, germanium, cobalt, graphite, and tungsten can all be found in Canada, and the U.S. will need them to maintain its leadership in the fields of technology and economics.

The fallout from Trump’s tough talk on tariff policy and his musings about annexing Canada have only increased the importance of mineral security. The president’s plan extends beyond the economy and is vital for his strategy of protecting American geopolitical interests.

Currently, the U.S. remains dependent on China for rare earth minerals, and this is a major handicap due to their rivalry with Beijing. Canada has been named as a key partner and ally in addressing that strategic gap.

Canada currently holds 34 critical minerals, offering a crucial potential advantage to the U.S. and a strategic alternative to the near-monopoly currently held by the Chinese. The Ring of Fire, a vast region of northern Ontario, is a treasure trove of critical minerals and has long been discussed as a future powerhouse of Canadian mining.

Ontario’s provincial government is spearheading the region’s development and is moving fast with legislation intended to speed up and streamline that process. In Ottawa, there is agreement between the Liberal government and Conservative opposition that the Ring of Fire needs to be developed to bolster the Canadian economy and national trade strategies.

Whether Canada comes away from the negotiations with the US in a stronger or weaker place will depend on the federal government’s willingness to make hard choices. One of those will be ramping up development, which can just as easily excite local communities as it can upset them.

One of the great drags on the Canadian economy over the past decade has been the inability to finish projects in a timely manner, especially in the natural resource sector. There was no good reason for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to take over a decade to complete, and for new mines to still take nearly twice that amount of time to be completed.

Canada is already an energy powerhouse and can very easily turn itself into a superpower in that sector. With that should come the ambition to unlock our mineral potential to complement that. Whether it be energy, water, uranium, or minerals, Canada has everything it needs to become the democratic world’s supplier of choice in the modern economy.

Given that world trade is in flux and its future is uncertain, it is better for Canada to enter that future from a place of strength, not weakness. There is no other choice.