Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Fraser Institute

Ottawa touts wait lists for dysfunctional child-care program

Published

1 year ago

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

Ahead of its April 16 budget release, the Trudeau government effectively admitted its national child-care program, which it began implementing in 2021, has created widespread shortages. “We’re seeing wait lists increase across the country,” said Jenna Sudds, federal minister in charge of child care.

The government has tried to cast the shortages as the result of skyrocketing demand for a popular federal program. But when government makes billions of dollars in subsidies available, of course there will be massive demand among people wanting to get their hands on the cash. That doesn’t mean the program is a success; it means the government is wrecking a market by throwing supply and demand out of whack.

Vancouver has a shortfall of about 15,000 child-care spaces for children up to age 12. In Niagara Region, the wait list for toddlers and preschoolers has expanded by 227 per cent in just the past two years. Clearly, the child-care sector has been thrown into disorder.

But if shortages illustrate a government program’s benefits, then the average 44-week wait time to get orthopedic surgery in Canada is evidence of the success of government health care. Our health-care system must be great—look how many people are lining up for it!

To try to mitigate the shortages, the Trudeau government announced $1 billion in low-interest loans and $60 million in non-repayable grants to expand and renovate child-care spaces. Additional money will be spent in the form of student loan forgiveness and training for workers in the sector. Both the shortages and new spending confirm what skeptics of national government daycare predicted from the outset—the original budget of $30 billion over five years, then $9.2 billion annually after that, underestimated what taxpayers would eventually shell out.

The new spending also exacerbates two government-created problems in child care. The first is that the $1 billion in loans and $60 million in grants are available only to public and non-profit providers. So excluded from the program are parents who want to take care of children at home, children who are cared for by grandparents or other relatives, and private for-profit providers. Instead of getting child-care help, they’ll foot the tax bill to pay for the government-preferred forms of child care.

The discrimination against private for-profit providers is a clear problem with the existing federal child-care strategy. “Frankly, Canada’s national daycare system excludes many more Canadians than it includes,” Cardus researcher Andrea Mrozek wrote last year. In Nova Scotia, where the federal government wants to move “to a fully not-for-profit and publicly managed system,” even provincial Liberal Leader Zach Churchill has lamented the exclusion of the private sector.

The second problem made worse is the spending is done increasingly through different streams and programs, diverting money towards administrative and bureaucratic bloat instead of actual child care. Based on a municipal memo back in 2022, it’s already estimated Peel Region in Ontario needs 40 additional bureaucrats to deal with child care. In British Columbia, the City of Cranbrook recently issued a 26-page request for proposals for consultants to prepare grant applications to the provincial government for child-care funds.

The ever-increasing government budget for child care, apparently, is great for the government sector and consultants hired to help move government money around. It’s a disaster, however, for parents who cannot find child care and taxpayers who pay billions for shortages—a reality unchanged by the Trudeau government’s latest announcement.

Author:

Matthew Lau
Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute
Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Agriculture / 39 mins ago

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

International / 2 hours ago

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

Business

New federal government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money than predecessor’s plan

Published on April 30, 2025

By

Fr0m the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.

As part of his successful election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised a “very different approach” to fiscal policy than that of the Trudeau government. But when you peel back the rhetoric and look at his plan for deficits and debt, things begin to look eerily similar—if not worse.

The Carney government’s “responsible” new approach is centered around the idea of “spending less” in order to “invest more.” The government plans to separate spending into two budgets: the operating budget (which appears to include bureaucrat salaries, cash transfers and benefits) and the capital budget (which includes any spending that “builds an asset”). The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 (meaning operating spending will be fully covered by revenues) while funding the capital budget through borrowing.

Aside from the fact that this clearly complicates federal finances, this “very different” approach to spending actually represents more of the same by continuing to pursue endless borrowing and a larger role for the government in the economy.

The chart below compares projected annual federal budget balances for the next four years, from both the 2024 Fall Economic Statement (FES)—the Trudeau government’s last fiscal update—and the 2025 Liberal Party platform. Importantly, deficits from the 2025 platform show the overall budget balance including both operating and capital spending.

Let’s start with the similarities.

In its final fiscal update last fall, the Trudeau government planned to borrow tens of billions of dollars each year to fund annual spending, with no end in sight. Based on its election platform, the Carney government also plans to run multi-billion-dollar deficits each year with no plan to balance the overall budget. The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.

In the current fiscal year (2025/26) the Trudeau government had planned to run a $42.2 billion deficit. The Carney government now plans to increase that deficit to $62.3 billion. Trudeau’s most recent fiscal plan forecasted annual deficits from 2025/26 to 2028/29 representing a cumulative $131.4 billion in federal government borrowing. Over that same period, the Carney government now plans to borrow a cumulative $224.8 billion.

The Carney government’s fiscal plan does include a number of tax changes that are expected to lower revenues in years to come—including (but not limited to) a personal income tax cut, the elimination of the GST for some first-time homebuyers, and the cancelling of the planned capital gains tax hike. But even if you exclude these factors from the overall budget, the Carney government still plans to borrow $52.9 billion more than the Trudeau government had planned over the next four years.

By continuing (if not worsening) this same approach of endless borrowing and rising debt, the Carney government will impose real costs on Canadians. Indeed, 16-year-olds can already expect to pay an additional $29,663 in personal income taxes over their lifetime as a result of debt accumulation under the previous federal government, before accounting for the promised increases.

One of the key promises made by Prime Minister Carney is that his government will take a different approach to fiscal policy than his predecessor. While we won’t know for certain until the new government releases its first budget, it appears this approach will continue the same costly habits of endless borrowing and rising debt.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

 

Continue Reading

Automotive

New federal government should pull the plug on Canada’s EV revolution

Published on April 30, 2025

By

During his victory speech Monday night, Prime Minister Mark Carney repeated one of his favourite campaign slogans and vowed to make Canada a “clean energy superpower.” So, Canadians can expect Ottawa to “invest” more taxpayer money in “clean energy” projects including electric vehicles (EVs), the revolutionary transportation technology that’s been ready to replace internal combustion since 1901 yet still requires government subsidies.

It’s a good time for a little historical review. In 2012 south of the border, the Obama administration poured massive subsidies into companies peddling green tech, only to see a vast swath go belly up including Solyndra, would-be maker of advanced solar panels, which failed so spectacularly CNN called the company the “poster child for well-meaning government policy gone bad.”

One might think that such a spectacular failure might have served as a cautionary tale for today’s politicians. But one would be wrong. Even as the EV transition slammed into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario’s Ford government poured $5 billion in subsidies into Honda to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario. That “investment” came on top of a long list of other “investments” including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution; $13 billion for Volkswagen (or $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.

How’s all that working out? Not great.

“Projects announced for Canada’s EV supply chain are in various states of operation, and many remain years away from production,” notes automotive/natural resource reporter Gabriel Friedman, writing in the Financial Post. “Of the four multibillion-dollar battery cell manufacturing plants announced for Canada, only one—a joint venture known as NextStar Energy Inc. between South Korea’s LG Energy Solution Ltd. and European automaker Stellantis NV—progressed into even the construction phase.”

In 2023, Volkswagen said it would invest $7 billion by 2030 to build a battery cell manufacturing complex in St. Thomas, Ontario. However, Friedman notes “construction of the VW plant is not scheduled to begin until this spring [2025] and initial cell production will not begin for years.” Or ever, if Donald Trump’s pledge to end U.S. government support for a broad EV transition comes to pass.

In the meantime, other elements of Canada’s “clean tech” future are also in doubt. In December 2024, Saint-Jérome, Que.-based Lion Electric Co., which had received $100 million in provincial and government support to assemble batteries in Canada for electric school buses and trucks, said it would file for bankruptcy in the United States and creditor protection in Canada. And Ford Motor Company last summer scrapped its planned EV assembly plant in Oakville, Ontario—after $640 million in federal and provincial support.

And of course, there’s Canada’s own poster-child-of-clean-tech-subsidy failure, Northvolt. According to the CBC, the Swedish battery manufacturer, with plans to build a $7 billion factory in Quebec, has declared bankruptcy in Sweden, though Northvolt claims that its North American operations are “solvent.” That’s cold comfort to some Quebec policymakers: “We’re going to be losing hundreds of millions of dollars in a bet that our government in Quebec made on a poorly negotiated investment,” said Parti Québécois MNA Pascal Paradis.

Elections often bring about change. If the Carney government wants to change course and avoid more clean-tech calamities, it should pull the plug on the EV revolution and avoid any more electro-boondoggles.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X