Connect with us

Business

Government has inherent bias for more government

Published

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

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.

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

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

Business

Canada has given $109 million to Communist China for ‘sustainable development’ since 2015

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A briefing note showed Canadian aid has gone to ‘key foreign policy priorities in China, including human rights, gender equality, sustainable development, and climate change.’

A federal briefing note disclosed that well over $100 million has been provided to the Communist Chinese government in so-called “foreign aid” to promote “sustainable development” that includes woke ideology such as gender equality.

As reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, a recent briefing note titled Assistance to China from May for the Minister of International Development showed $109 million has gone to “key foreign policy priorities in China, including human rights, gender equality, sustainable development, and climate change” since 2015 and $645 million since 2003.

The briefing note asked directly if funding was “going to the Government of China.”

In reply, the briefing note stated, “Canada has not provided direct bilateral assistance to Chinese state authorities since 2013, though it continues to provide small amounts of funding to international partners and non-state partners on the ground.”

Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015 and increased relations with the Communist Chinese regime. This trend under the Liberal Party government has continued with Prime Minister Mark Carney.

During a 2025 federal election campaign debate, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre called out Carney for his ties to Communist China.

Conservative MP Andrew Scheer has consistently called out any money at all going to China, saying, “I don’t believe Canadian taxpayers should be sending any money to China.”

“We’re talking about a Communist dictatorial government that abuses human rights, quashes freedoms, violates rights of its citizens, and has a very aggressive foreign policy throughout the region,” he noted.

Scheer added that he has been calling on the Carney Liberals to “stand up for themselves, stand up for Canadians, stop being bullied and pushed around on the world stage, especially by China.”

Other countries have received millions of dollars in foreign aid, with $2.1 billion going to Ukraine, $195 million to Ethiopia, $172 million to Haiti, and $151 million to the West Bank and Gaza last year.

Foreign aid to all nations totaled $12.3 billion.

LifeSiteNews recently reported that the Canadian Liberal government gave millions in aid to Chinese universities.

China has been accused of direct election meddling in Canada, as reported by LifeSiteNews.

LifeSiteNews also reported that a new exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper has claimed there is compelling evidence that Carney and Trudeau are/were strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to China and the World Economic Forum.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s combative trade tactics are backfiring

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Sylvain Charlebois

 

Defiant messaging may play well at home, but abroad it fuels mistrust, higher tariffs and a steady erosion of Canada’s agri-food exports

The real threat to Canadian exporters isn’t U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, it’s Ottawa and Queen’s Park’s reckless diplomacy.

The latest tariff hike, whether triggered by Ontario’s anti-tariff ad campaign or not, is only a symptom. The deeper problem is Canada’s escalating loss of credibility at the trade table. Washington’s move to raise duties from 35 per cent to 45 per cent on nonCUSMA imports (goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, the successor to NAFTA) reflects a diplomatic climate that is quickly souring, with very real consequences for Canadian exporters.

Some analysts argue that a 10-point tariff increase is inconsequential. It is not. The issue isn’t just what is being tariffed; it is the tone of the relationship. Canada is increasingly seen as erratic and reactive, negotiating from emotion rather than strategy. That kind of reputation is dangerous when dealing with the U.S., which remains Canada’s most important trade partner by a wide margin.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s stand up to America messaging, complete with a nostalgic Ronald Reagan cameo, may have been rooted in genuine conviction. Many Canadians share his instinct to defend the country’s interests with bold language. But in diplomacy, tone often outweighs intent. What plays well domestically can sound defiant abroad, and the consequences are already being felt in boardrooms and warehouses across the country.

Ford’s public criticisms of companies such as Crown Royal, accused of abandoning Ontario, and Stellantis, which recently announced it will shift production of its Jeep Compass from Brampton to Illinois as part of a US$13 billion U.S. investment, may appeal to voters who like to see politicians get tough. But those theatrics reinforce the impression that Canada is hostile to
international investors. At a time when global capital can move freely, that perception is damaging. Collaboration, not confrontation, is what’s needed most to secure investment in Canada’s economy.

Such rhetoric fuels uncertainty on both sides of the border. The results are clear: higher tariffs, weaker investor confidence and American partners quietly pivoting away from Canadian suppliers.

Many Canadian food exporters are already losing U.S. accounts, not because of trade rules but because of eroding trust. Executives in the agri-food sector are beginning to wonder whether Canada can still be counted on as a reliable partner, and some have already shifted contracts southward.

Ford’s political campaigns may win applause locally, but Washington’s retaliatory measures do not distinguish between provinces. They hit all exporters, including Canada’s food manufacturers that rely heavily on the U.S. market, which purchases more than half of Canada’s agri-food exports. That means farmers, processors and transportation companies across the country are caught in the crossfire.

Those who believe the new 45 per cent rate will have little effect are mistaken. Some Canadian importers now face steeper duties than competitors in Vietnam, Laos or even Myanmar. And while tariffs matter, perception matters more. Right now, the optics for Canada’s agri-food sector are poor, and once confidence is lost, it is difficult to regain.

While many Canadians dismiss Trump as unpredictable, the deeper question is what happened to Canada’s once-cohesive Team Canada approach to trade. The agri-food industry depends on stability and predictability. Alienating our largest customer, representing 34 per cent of the global consumer market and millions of Canadian jobs tied to trade, is not just short-sighted, it’s economically reckless.

There is no trade war. What we are witnessing is an American recalibration of domestic fiscal policy with global consequences. Canada must adapt with prudence, not posturing.

The lesson is simple: reckless rhetoric is costing Canada far more than tariffs. It’s time to change course, especially at Queen’s Park.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Trending

X