From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population.

According to a recent poll, there’s widespread support among Canadians for reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy. The support extends across the political spectrum. Among the political right, 82.8 per cent agree to reduce the federal bureaucracy compared to only 5.8 per cent who disagree (with the balance neither agreeing nor disagreeing); among political moderates 68.4 per cent agree and only 10.0 per cent disagree; and among the political left 44.8 per cent agree and 26.3 per cent disagree.

Taken together, “67 per cent agreed the federal bureaucracy should be significantly reduced. Only 12 per cent disagreed.” These results shouldn’t be surprising. The federal bureaucracy is ripe for cuts. From 2015 to 2024, the federal government added more than 110,000 new bureaucrats, a 43 per cent increase, which was nearly triple the rate of population growth.

This bureaucratic expansion was totally unjustified. From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population. And there are many similar examples.

While in 2025 the number of federal public service jobs fell by three per cent, the cost of the federal bureaucracy actually increased as the number of fulltime equivalents, which accounts for whether those jobs were fulltime or part-time, went up. With the tax burden created by the federal bureaucracy rising so significantly in the past decade, it’s no wonder Canadians overwhelmingly support its reduction.

Another interesting poll result: “While 42 per cent of those surveyed supported the government using artificial intelligence tools to resolve bottlenecks in service delivery, 32 per cent opposed it, with 25 per cent on the fence.” The authors of the poll say the “plurality in favour is surprising, given the novelty of the technology.”

Yet if 67 per cent of Canadians agree with significantly shrinking the federal bureaucracy, then solid support for using AI to increasing efficiency should not be too surprising, even if the technology is relatively new. Separate research finds 58 per cent of Canadian workers say they use AI tools provided by their workplace, and although many of them do not necessarily use AI regularly, of those who report using AI the majority say it improves their productivity.

In fact, there’s massive potential for the government to leverage AI to increase efficiency and control labour expenses. According to a recent study by a think-tank at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson), while the federal public service and the overall Canadian workforce are similar in terms of the percentage of roles that could be made more productive by AI, federal employees were twice as likely (58 per cent versus 29 per cent) to have jobs “comprised of tasks that are more likely to be substituted or replaced” by AI.

The opportunity to improve public service efficiency and deliver massive savings to taxpayers is clearly there. However, whether the Carney government will take advantage of this opportunity is questionable. Unlike private businesses, which must continuously innovate and improve operational efficiency to compete in a free market, federal bureaucracies face no competition. As a result, there’s little pressure or incentive to reduce costs and increase efficiency, whether through AI or other process or organizational improvements.

In its upcoming budget and beyond, it would be a shame if the federal government does not, through AI or other changes, restrain the cost of its workforce. Taxpayers deserve, and clearly demand, a break from this ever-increasing burden.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

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.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute