Government has inherent bias for more government

One of the authors of this op-ed resides in a municipality, which recently launched an online survey to gauge the preferences of residents with respect to its upcoming budget, which is laudable, but the questions illustrate a problem within government: a bias for more government.

The City of Coquitlam in British Columbia asked respondents whether it should increase, decrease or simply maintain the same level of spending in 2025 for policing, recreation, water and sewage, infrastructure and others items. The problem: there wasn’t a single question on whether residents prefer tax reductions.

Moreover, there was no discussion or context about how increased spending for these activities must come from taxpayers in the form of either having more taxpayers (city population increases) and/or higher tax rates for those residing in the city. What’s clear from the survey is that the municipal government prefers to spend more.

And this bias towards more government within government is not restricted to this local municipality. Other municipalities, provincial governments and certainly the Trudeau federal government have favoured more spending.

Under Prime Minister Trudeau federal spending has reached never-before-seen levels, even after adjusting for inflation. Consider, for instance, that per-person federal spending (excluding interest costs) will reach $11,901 this fiscal year (inflation-adjusted), well above previous levels of per-person spending including during the 2008-09 financial crisis and both world wars. The rationale is that Ottawa is delivering services demanded by Canadians.

But is that true? Are Canadians demanding national pharmacare, national dental benefits and a national daycare program? The answer depends on whether the costs of those programs are included in the discussion.

A 2022 poll asked Canadians about their support for all three programs. Support ranged from 69 per cent for national daycare, to 72 per cent for dental care, to 79 per cent for pharmacare. Here’s the problem, though. The questions were asked without respondents considering any costs. In other words, the respondents were asked whether they support these programs assuming they don’t affect their taxes.

But of course, taxpayers must pay for government spending, and when those costs are included, Canadians are much less supportive. In the same poll, when increased spending is linked with an increase in the GST, support plummets to 36 per cent for daycare, 40 per cent for pharmacare and 42 per cent for dental care.

And these results are not unique. A 2020 poll by the Angus Reid Institute found 86 per cent support for a national prescription drug program—but that support drops by almost half (47 per cent) if a one-percentage point increase in the middle-class personal income tax rate is included.

One explanation for the dramatic change in support rests in another poll, which found that 74 per cent of respondents felt the average Canadian family was overtaxed.

So it’s convenient for governments to avoid connecting more spending with higher taxes.

This internal government support for more government also shows up in our tax mix. Canadian governments rely on less visible taxes than our counterparts in the OECD, a group of high-income, developed countries. For instance, Canadian governments collect 6.8 per cent of the economy (GDP) in consumption taxes such as the GST, which are quite visible and transparent because the cost shows up directly on your bill. That ranks Canada 31st of 38 OECD countries and well below the OECD average of 10.0 per cent.

Alternatively, we rely on personal income tax revenues to a much greater degree and, because these taxes are automatically deducted from the paycheques of Canadians, they are much less apparent to workers. Canada collects 12.3 per cent of the economy in personal income taxes, ranking us 6th highest for our reliance on personal income taxes and above the OECD average of 8.3 per cent.

And a complying media aids the push for more government spending. According to a recent study, when reporting on the announcement of three new federal programs (pharmacare, dental care and national daycare) the CBC and CTV only included the cost of these programs in 4 per cent of their television news coverage. Most of the coverage related to the nature of the new programs, their potential impact on Canadians, and the responses from the Conservative, NDP and Bloc Quebecois. Simply put, the main television coverage didn’t query the government on the cost of these new programs and how taxpayers would pay the bill, leaving many viewers with the mistaken impression that the programs are costless.

Indeed, it’s interesting to note that the same study found that 99.4 per cent of press releases issued by the federal government related to these three programs excluded any information on their costs or impact on the budget.

The inherent bias within government for more government is increasingly clear, and supported by a lack of skepticism in the media. Canadians need clearer information from government on the potential benefits and costs of new or expanded spending, and the media must do a better job of critically covering government initiatives. Only then can we realistically understand what Canadians actually demand from government.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #GovernmentSpending #JakeFuss #JasonClemens GovernmentBureacracy

Up Next

Mystery Terrorist: The Unknown Life and Violent Times of Illegal Border-Crosser Sidi Mohammed Abdallahi

Don't Miss

Why should Liberal MPs defend the carbon tax now?

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

China’s economy takes a hit as factories experience sharp decline in orders following Trump tariffs

International / 2 hours ago

Javier Millei declassifies 1850+ files on Nazi leaders in Argentina

Business / 4 hours ago

Scott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal

Business

China’s economy takes a hit as factories experience sharp decline in orders following Trump tariffs

Published on April 30, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports are delivering a direct blow to China’s economy, with new data showing factory activity dropping sharply in April. The fallout signals growing pressure on Beijing as it struggles to prop up a slowing economy amid a bruising trade standoff.

Key Details:

China’s manufacturing index plunged to 49.0 in April — the steepest monthly decline in over a year.
Orders for Chinese exports hit their lowest point since the Covid-19 pandemic, according to official data.
U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods have reached 145%, with China retaliating at 125%, intensifying the standoff.

Diving Deeper:

Three weeks into a high-stakes trade war, President Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy is showing early signs of success — at least when it comes to putting economic pressure on America’s chief global rival. A new report from China’s National Bureau of Statistics shows the country’s manufacturing sector suffered its sharpest monthly slowdown in over a year. The cause? A dramatic drop in new export orders from the United States, where tariffs on Chinese-made goods have soared to 145%.

The manufacturing purchasing managers’ index fell to 49.0 in April — a contraction level that underlines just how deeply U.S. tariffs are biting. It’s the first clear sign from China’s own official data that the trade measures imposed by President Trump are starting to weaken the export-reliant Chinese economy. A sub-index measuring new export orders reached its lowest point since the Covid-19 pandemic, and factory employment fell to levels not seen since early 2024.

Despite retaliatory tariffs of 125% on U.S. goods, Beijing appears to be scrambling to shore up its economy. China’s government has unveiled a series of internal stimulus measures to boost consumer spending and stabilize employment. These include pension increases, subsidies, and a new law promising more protection for private businesses — a clear sign that confidence among Chinese entrepreneurs is eroding under Xi Jinping’s increasing centralization of economic power.

President Trump, on the other hand, remains defiant. “China was ripping us off like nobody’s ever ripped us off,” he said Tuesday in an interview, dismissing concerns that his policies would harm American consumers. He predicted Beijing would “eat those tariffs,” a statement that appears more prescient as China’s economic woes grow more apparent.

Still, the impact is not one-sided. Major U.S. companies like UPS and General Motors have warned of job cuts and revised earnings projections, respectively. Consumer confidence has also dipped. Yet the broader strategy from the Trump administration appears to be focused on playing the long game — applying sustained pressure on China to level the playing field for American workers and businesses.

Economists are warning of potential global fallout if the trade dispute lingers. However, Beijing may have more to lose. Analysts at Capital Economics now predict China’s growth will fall well short of its 5% target for the year, citing the strain on exports and weak domestic consumption. Meanwhile, Nomura Securities estimates up to 15.8 million Chinese jobs could be at risk if U.S. exports continue to decline.

Business

Scott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal

Published on April 30, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

During Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. is prepared to move forward with a minerals agreement with Ukraine. President Trump has framed the deal as a way to recover U.S. aid and establish an American presence to deter Russian threats.

Key Details:

Bessent confirmed during a Cabinet meeting that the U.S. is “ready to sign this afternoon,” even as Ukrainian officials introduced last-minute changes to the agreement. “We’re sure that they will reconsider that,” he added during the Cabinet discussion.
Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko was reportedly in Washington on Wednesday to iron out remaining details with American officials.
The deal is expected to outline a rare earth mineral partnership between Washington and Kyiv, with Ukrainian Armed Forces Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky calling it a potential turning point: “The minerals deal is the first step. Ukraine should sign it on an equal basis. Russia is afraid of this deal.”

Diving Deeper:

The United States is poised to sign a long-anticipated rare earth minerals agreement with Ukraine, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. According to Bessent, Ukrainians introduced “last minute changes” late Tuesday night, complicating the final phase of negotiations. Still, he emphasized the U.S. remains prepared to move forward: “We’re sure that they will reconsider that, and we are ready to sign this afternoon.”

As first reported by Ukrainian media and confirmed by multiple Ukrainian officials, Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko is in Washington this week for the final stages of negotiations. “We are finalizing the last details with our American colleagues,” Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal told Telemarathon.

The deal follows months of complex talks that nearly collapsed earlier this year. In February, President Trump dispatched top officials, including Bessent, to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine to hammer out terms. According to officials familiar with the matter, Trump grew frustrated when Kyiv initially refused U.S. conditions. Still, the two sides ultimately reached what Bessent described as an “improved” version of the deal by late February.

The effort nearly fell apart again during Zelensky’s February 28th visit to the White House, where a heated Oval Office exchange between the Ukrainian president, Trump, and Vice President JD Vance led to Zelensky being removed from the building and the deal left unsigned.

Despite those setbacks, the deal appears to be back on track. While no public text of the agreement has been released, the framework is expected to center on U.S.-Ukraine cooperation in extracting rare earth minerals—resources vital to modern manufacturing, electronics, and defense technologies.

President Trump has publicly defended the arrangement as a strategic and financial win for the United States. “We want something for our efforts beyond what you would think would be acceptable, and we said, ‘rare earth, they’re very good,’” he said during the Cabinet meeting. “It’s also good for them, because you’ll have an American presence at the site and the American presence will keep a lot of bad actors out of the country—or certainly out of the area where we’re doing the digging.”

Trump has emphasized that the deal would serve as a form of “security guarantee” for Ukraine, providing a stabilizing American footprint amid ongoing Russian aggression. He framed it as a tangible return on the billions in U.S. aid sent to Kyiv since the start of Russia’s 2022 invasion.