Democracy waning in Canada due to federal policies

In How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that while some democracies collapse due to external threats, many more self-destruct from within. Democratic backsliding often occurs not through dramatic coups but through the gradual erosion of institutions by elected leaders—presidents or prime ministers—who subvert the very system that brought them to power. Sometimes this process is swift, as in Germany in 1933, but more often it unfolds slowly and almost imperceptibly.

The book was written during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, when the authors expressed concern about his disregard for democratic norms. Drawing on Juan Linz’s 1978 work The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, Levitsky and Ziblatt identified several warning signs of democratic decline in Trump’s leadership: rejection of democratic rules, denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, tolerance or encouragement of violence, and a willingness to restrict dissent including criticism from the media.

While Trump is an easy target for such critiques, Levitsky and Ziblatt’s broader thesis is that no democracy is immune to these threats. Could Canada be at risk of democratic decline? In light of developments over the past decade, perhaps.

Consider, for example, the state of free speech and government criticism. The previous Liberal government under Justin Trudeau was notably effective at cultivating a favourable media environment. Following the 2015 election, the media enjoyed a prolonged honeymoon period, often focusing on the prime minister’s image and “sunny ways.” After the 2019 election, which resulted in a minority government, the strategy shifted toward direct financial support. Citing pandemic-related revenue losses, the government introduced “temporary” subsidies for media organizations. These programs have since become permanent and costly, with $325 million allocated for 2024/25. During the 2025 election campaign, Mark Carney pledged to increase this by an additional $150 million.

Beyond the sheer scale of these subsidies, there’s growing concern that legacy media outlets—now financially dependent on government support—may struggle to maintain objectivity, particularly during national elections. This dependency risks undermining the media’s role as a watchdog of democracy.

Second, on April 27, 2023, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-11, an update to the Broadcasting Act that extends CRTC regulation to digital content. While individual social media users and podcasters are technically exempt, the law allows the CRTC to regulate platforms that host content from traditional broadcasters and streaming services—raising concerns about indirect censorship. This move further restricted freedom of speech in Canada.

Third, the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act to end the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa was ruled unconstitutional by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley who found that the government had not met the legal threshold for such extraordinary powers. The same day of the ruling the government announced it would appeal the 200-page decision, doubling down on its justification for invoking the Act.

In addition to these concerns, federal government program spending has grown significantly—from 12.8 per cent of GDP in 2014/15 to a projected 16.2 per cent in 2023/24—indicating that the government is consuming an increasing share of the country’s resources.

Finally, Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which became law on June 26, grants the federal cabinet—and effectively the prime minister—the power to override existing laws and regulations for projects deemed in the “national interest.” The bill’s vague language leaves the definition of “national interest” open to broad interpretation, giving the executive branch unprecedented authority to micromanage major projects.

Individually, these developments may appear justifiable or benign. Taken together, they suggest a troubling pattern—a gradual erosion of democratic norms and institutions in Canada.

Lydia Miljan

Professor of Political Science, University of Windsor

Up Next

Matt Walsh slams Trump administration’s move to bury Epstein sex trafficking scandal

Don't Miss

Trump praises Supreme Court decision to allow dismantling of Department of Education

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

Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships

Alberta / 1 hour ago

Enbridge CEO says ‘there’s a good reason’ for Alberta to champion new oil pipeline

Censorship Industrial Complex / 2 hours ago

Canada’s privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet

Business

Canada Post is failing Canadians—time to privatize it

Published on October 12, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

In the latest chapter of a seemingly never-ending saga, Canada Post workers are on strike again for the second time in less than a year, after the federal government allowed the Crown corporation to close some rural offices and end door-to-door deliveries. These postal strikes are highly disruptive given Canada Post’s near monopoly on letter mail across the country. It’s well past time to privatize the organization.

From 2018 to the mid-point of 2025, Canada Post has lost more than $5.0 billion, and it ran a shortfall of $407 million in the latest quarter alone. Earlier this year, the federal government loaned Canada Post $1.034 billion—a substantial sum of taxpayer money—to help keep the organization afloat.

As a Crown corporation, Canada Post operates at the behest of the federal government and faces little competition in the postal market. Canadians have nowhere to turn if they’re unhappy with service quality, prices or delivery times, particularly when it comes to “snail mail.”

Consequently, given its near-monopoly over the postal market, Canada Post has few incentives to keep costs down or become profitable because the government (i.e. taxpayers) is there to bail it out. The lack of competition also means Canada Post lacks incentives to innovate and improve service quality for customers, and the near-monopoly prohibits other potential service providers from entering the letter-delivery market including in remote areas. It’s clearly a failing business that’s unresponsive to customer needs, lacks creativity and continuously fails to generate profit.

But there’s good news. Companies such as Amazon, UPS, FedEx and others deliver more than two-thirds of parcels in the country. They compete for individuals and businesses on price, service quality and delivery time. There’s simply no justification for allowing Canada Post to monopolize any segment of the market. The government should privatize Canada Post and end its near-monopoly status on letter mail.

What would happen if Ottawa privatized Canada Post?

Well, peer countries including the Netherlands, Austria and Germany privatized their postal services two decades ago. Prices for consumers (adjusted for inflation) fell by 11 per cent in Austria, 15 per cent in the Netherlands and 17 per cent in Germany.

Denmark has taken it a step further and plans to end letter deliveries altogether. The country has seen a steep 90 per cent drop in letter volumes since 2000 due to the rise of global e-commerce and online shopping. In other words, the Danes are adapting to the times rather than continuing to operate an archaic business model.

In light of the latest attempt by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to shakedown Canadian taxpayers, it’s become crystal clear that Canada Post should leave the stone age and step into the twenty-first century. A privately owned and operated Canada Post could follow in the footsteps of its European counterparts. But the status quo will only lead to further financial ruin, and Canadians will be stuck with the bill.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Alex Whalen

Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute

Business

Carney government plans to muddy the fiscal waters in upcoming budget

Published on October 11, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Rather than directly spend money on critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports or even electricity grids—things that traditionally are considered capital investments—the government plans to spend money on subsidies and tax breaks to corporations (i.e. corporate welfare) under the umbrella of “capital investment”

The Carney government’s long-awaited first budget is almost here—expected Nov. 4—but Canadians may not recognize what they get. Early on, the new government promised a new approach to spending. Thanks to a decade of record-breaking spending under Justin Trudeau, the federal deficit sits at a projected $48.3 billion while total debt has eclipsed $2.1 trillion. But the Carney government’s plan announced this week appears to rely on accounting maneuvers rather than any substantive spending reductions.

According to the latest details released by the government, the Carney government will separate spending into two categories: “operating spending” and “capital investment.” Within this framework, the government plans to balance the “operating budget” within three years.

But of course, if the government eventually balances the operating budget, that doesn’t mean it will stop borrowing money to pay for“capital investment”—a new category of spending the government can define and expand whenever it deems necessary.

Currently, according to the government, capital investment will include any spending or tax expenditures (e.g. tax credits and deductions) that “contribute to capital formation”—the creation of assets (such as machinery or equipment) that improve the ability of workers to produce goods and services.

In other words, rather than directly spend money on critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports or even electricity grids—things that traditionally are considered capital investments—the government plans to spend money on subsidies and tax breaks to corporations (i.e. corporate welfare) under the umbrella of “capital investment,” so long as this spending will somehow “encourage” capital formation. But clearly, corporate welfare doesn’t belong in the same category as the expansion of a critical port, for example, and the government shouldn’t pretend that it does.

Put simply, because the term “capital investment” is so broad and malleable, the government can seemingly use it whenever it wants. For example, to meet NATO’s spending target of 2 per cent of GDP, a key point of contention in Carney’s negotiations with President Trump, the Carney government could (inaccurately) categorize some defence spending as capital spending. And in fact, the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer—Ottawa’s fiscal watchdog—views the Carney government’s definition as “overly expansive” and suggests the inclusion of corporate tax breaks and subsidies will “overstate” the government’s actual contribution to the creation of capital.

This approach by the Carney government will not help Canadians understand the true state of federal finances. While Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne recently said that the “deficit and the debt will be recorded in the same manner as in previous budgets,” on budget day and beyond the government will undoubtedly focus on the operating budget when communicating to Canadians. So, the government will only tell part of the story.

After years of fiscal mismanagement with large increases in spending and debt under the Trudeau government, Canadians need a government willing to make the tough decisions necessary to get federal finances back in shape. But the Carney government appears poised to shirk accountability and use tricks to cloud the true state of federal finances.