Poll shows Canadians want to shrink bureaucracy

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing a plurality of Canadians want to reduce the number of federal government employees.

“The poll shows taxpayers know they’re paying for too many federal paper pushers and want Ottawa to shrink the bureaucracy,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Canadians can’t afford to keep bankrolling a bloated federal bureaucracy.”

Since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015, Ottawa added 108,793 new federal government employees – an increase of 42 per cent.

The Leger poll asked Canadians what they think should happen to the size of the federal bureaucracy. The results of the poll show:

47 per cent want to reduce number of federal employees
29 per cent want to maintain the number of federal employees
Seven per cent want to increase the number of federal employees
17 per cent don’t know

Among those who are decided on the issue, 56 per cent of Canadians want to reduce the number of federal government employees.

When breaking the results down by political party vote intentions, the poll shows:

71 per cent of Conservative voters want to reduce the number of federal employees
51 per cent of Bloc voters want to reduce the number of federal employees
42 per cent of Green voters want to reduce the number of federal employees
36 per cent of Liberal voters want to reduce the number of federal employees
26 per cent of NDP voters want to reduce the number of federal employees

“Taxpayers paid for tens of thousands of extra bureaucrats, more than one million pay raises and hundreds of millions in bonuses in recent years and the government still can’t deliver good services,” Terrazzano said. “Canadians can’t afford to pay higher taxes and the government is up to its eyeballs in debt, so it’s time for Ottawa to take air out of its ballooning bureaucracy.”

Up Next

Indecent Proposals: How Activist Investors Hijacked Responsible Corporate Governance

Don't Miss

First Nations Buy Into Pipelines

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

Kamala Harris’s Track Record: Big Spending, Wokeness, Equity and Flip Flops

Crime / 2 hours ago

Nashville school shooter’s ‘manifesto’ highlights the destructive nature of porn, sexual confusion

COVID-19 / 5 hours ago

Questions linger after Coutts verdict

COVID-19

Questions linger after Coutts verdict

Published on September 8, 2024

Todayville

Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick Courtesy Bridge City News/YouTube

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

The Coutts trial may be over, but the questions it raises about justice and overreach continue.

A jury in the trial of Chris Carbert and Anthony “Tony” Olienick rendered a NOT GUILTY verdict on a charge of conspiracy to commit murder of police officers. Known as the Coutts Two, Carbert and Olienick’s trial lasted from June 6 to August 2, 2024. After two and a half days of deliberations, the jury also found the pair GUILTY of possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose, and mischief over $5,000. Olienick was also found GUILTY of possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose.

On February 13, 2022, Olienick was arrested outside Smuggler’s Saloon. Early on February 14, 2022, Chris Carbert was awakened from his sleep in a trailer by police loudspeaker.

Two Co-Accused Had All Charges Dropped in February

Conspiracy, possession of weapons, and mischief charges were also laid against Chris Lysak and Jerry Morin. Carbert, Olienick, Lysak and Morin, were dubbed the Coutts Four.

Lysak was arrested in Coutts late on February 13, 2022. Morin was arrested heading west of Calgary on Hwy. 22. He would work for a rancher near Priddis, a three-hour drive from Coutts. Lysak and Morin had all the original charges in the indictment dropped on Feb 6th, 2024.

Lysak pleaded to improper storage of a firearm. That charge typically results in a minor fine, not two years behind bars. Morin pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic firearms, not to trafficking firearms. Two years in custody — including solitary confinement and being witness to brutality between prisoners — had taken its toll.

Tony Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns, told this reporter, Morin was not guilty of the new charge to which he plead. But this was the plea deal the Crown would agree to. Morin and Lysak were released after 723 days behind bars.

Carbert and Olienick maintained their innocence. However, pre-trial deliberations in court dribbled out for over a year before the trial itself.

The Accused Were Unarmed
None of the original Coutts Four — Carbert, Olienick, Lysak or Morin — were armed when arrested. None had a criminal record. Three of the four are fathers with children. Before his arrest, Lethbridge resident Chris Carbert was a self-employed fisherman who also ran a landscaping and fencing business with nine employees.

Years before his arrest, Tony Olienick took part of the clean-up in High River, Alberta, after the 2013 floods. The self-employed gravel truck owner got contract work at a stone quarry.

Coutts Charges Cited to Invoke Emergencies Act

At the Public Order Emergency Commission inquiry in November 2022, several senior cabinet and government officials cited events in Coutts as one of the triggers for invoking the Emergencies [War Measures] Act on February 14, 2022. Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland testified “we heard from the RCMP Commissioner about concerns that there were serious weapons in Coutts . . . that really raised the stakes in terms of my degree of concern about what could be happening.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated, “the occupation at Coutts seemed to be emboldened.”

Coutts Mayor, Jimmy Willett described the protesters as “Domestic Terrorists.” Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino testified “the situation was combustible… individuals… involved in Coutts were prepared to go down with a fight that could lead to the loss of life, . . . would have triggered other events across the country.”

The Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, pointed to the “seriousness” and “scale” of the “illegal activity,” “the quantity of weapons and ammunition discovered by the RCMP… contemplated by people at Coutts.” This confirmed her view that these people were insurrectionists, bent on “overthrowing the government.”

Yet, no bodycam footage and no recording entered as evidence in the trial substantiated claims by RCMP that Carbert or Olienick plotted violence against police. In January 2024, a federal court ruled the invocation of the Emergencies Act was “unconstitutional.” The August 2 not guilty verdict for conspiracy to commit murder adds to the perception of government overreaction to the protests.

A Surprise from the Crown
In its closing words to the jury, the Crown suddenly alleged there was a hand-off of weapons on February 11, 2022.

The Crown should provide full disclosure to the defence before the trial concludes so allegations can be tested in court. Never mind. This last-minute allegation may have swayed the jury to find the defendants guilty of the possession of firearms charge and Olienick of possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.

Sentencing and bail hearings were scheduled from August 26 to 30. The week of September 9, the judge at the Coutts Two trial will hand down sentences for both of the accused given their combination of i) not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder verdict by the jury and ii) guilty verdicts for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and mischief, and for Olienick a separate guilty verdict for possession of an explosive for a dangerous purpose.

By then, the pair will have been in custody for 935 days.

This commentary is first of a three part series. Read part two here, and three here.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. His forthcoming book is Unjustified: The Emergencies Act and the Inquiry that Got It Wrong

Business

Federal government should stay in its lane

Published on September 8, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

There’s been more talk this year than normal about the need for governments, particularly Ottawa, to “stay in their own lane.” But what does this actually mean when it comes to the practical taxing, spending and regulating done by provincial and federal governments?

The rules of the road, so to speak, are laid out in sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Constitution. As noted economist Jack Mintz recently explained, the federal government was allocated responsibility for areas of national priority such as defence and foreign relations, criminal law, and national industries such as transportation, communication and financial institutions. The provinces, on the other hand, were allotted responsibilities deemed to be closer to the people such as health care, education, social services and municipalities.

Simply put, the principle of staying in one’s lane means the federal and provincial governments respect one another’s areas of responsibility and work collaboratively when there are joint interests and/or overlapping responsibilities such as environmental issues.

The experience of the mid-1990s through to roughly 2015 shows the tangible benefits of having each level of government focus on their areas of responsibility. Recall that the Liberal Chrétien government fundamentally removed itself from several areas of provincial jurisdiction, particularly welfare and social services, in its historic 1995 budget.

But the election of the Trudeau government in 2015 represented a marked change in approach. The tax and spending policies of the Trudeau government, which broke a 20-year consensus, favoured ever-increasing spending, higher taxes and much higher levels of borrowing. Federal spending (excluding interest payments on debt) has increased from $273.6 billion in 2015-16 when Trudeau first took office to an expected $483.6 billion this year, an increase of 76.7 per cent.

Federal taxes on most Canadians, including the middle class, have also increased despite the Trudeau government promising lower taxes. And despite the tax increases, borrowing has also increased. Consequently, the national debt has ballooned from $1.1 trillion when Trudeau took office to an estimated $2.1 trillion this year.

Despite these massive spending increases, there are serious questions about core areas of federal responsibility. Consider, for example, the major problems with Canada’s defence spending.

Canada has been called out by both NATO officials and our counterparts within NATO for failing to meet our commitments. As a NATO country, Canada is committed to spend 2 per cent of the value of our economy (GDP) annually on defence. The latest estimate is that Canada will spend 1.4 per cent of GDP on defence and we’re the only country without a plan to reach the target by 2030. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently estimated that to reach our NATO commitment, defence spending would have to increase by $21.3 billion in 2029-30, which given the state of federal finances would entail much higher borrowing and/or higher taxes.

So, while the Trudeau government has increased federal spending markedly, it has not spent those funds on core areas of federal responsibility. Instead, Trudeau’s Ottawa has increasingly involved itself in provincial areas of responsibility. Consider three new national initiatives that are all squarely provincial areas of responsibility: pharmacare, $10-a-day daycare and dental care.

And the amounts involved in these programs are not incidental. In Budget 2021, the Trudeau government announced $27.2 billion over five years for the new $10-a-day daycare initiative, Budget 2023 committed $13.0 billion for the dental benefit over five years, and Budget 2024 included a first step towards national pharmacare with spending of $1.5 billion over five years to cover most contraceptives and some diabetes medications.

So, while the Trudeau government has deprioritized core areas of federal responsibility such as defence, it has increasingly intruded on areas of provincial responsibility.

Canada works best when provincial and federal governments recognize and adhere to their roles within Confederation as was more the norm for more than two decades. The Trudeau government’s intrusion into provincial jurisdiction has increased tensions with the provinces, likely created unsustainable new programs that will ultimately put enormous financial pressure on the provinces, and led to a less well-functioning federal government. Staying in one’s lane makes sense for both driving and political governance.