This article supplied by Troy Media.

 By Ian Madsen

From overstaffed departments to subsidy giveaways, Canadians are paying a high price for government excess

Canada’s federal spending is growing, deficits are mounting, and waste is going unchecked. As governments look for ways to control costs, some experts say Canada needs a dedicated agency to root out inefficiency—before it’s too late

Not all the Trump administration’s policies are dubious. One is very good, in theory at least: the Department of Government Efficiency. While that
term could be an oxymoron, like ‘political wisdom,’ if DOGE proves useful, a Canadian version might be, too.

DOGE aims to identify wasteful, duplicative, unnecessary or destructive government programs and replace outdated data systems. It also seeks to
lower overall costs and ensure mechanisms are in place to evaluate proposed programs for effectiveness and value for money. This can, and often does, involve eliminating departments and, eventually, thousands of jobs. Some new roles within DOGE may need to become permanent.

The goal in the U.S. is to reduce annual operating costs and ensure government spending grows more slowly than revenues. Washington’s spending has exploded in recent years. The U.S. federal deficit now exceeds six per cent of gross domestic product. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the cost of servicing that debt is rising at an unsustainable rate.

Canada’s latest budget deficit of $61.9 billion in fiscal 2023-24 amounts to about two per cent of GDP—less alarming than our neighbour’s situation, but still significant. It adds to the federal debt of $1.236 trillion, about 41 per cent of our estimated $3 trillion GDP. Ottawa’s public accounts show expenses at 17.8 per cent of GDP, up from about 14 per cent just eight years ago. Interest on the growing debt accounted for 9.1 per cent of
revenues in the most recent fiscal year, up from five per cent just two years ago.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) consistently highlights dubious spending, outright waste and extravagant programs: “$30 billion in subsidies to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt. Federal corporate subsidies totalled $11.2 billion in 2022 alone. Shutting down the federal government’s seven regional development agencies would save taxpayers an estimated $1.5 billion annually.”

The CTF also noted that Ottawa hired 108,000 additional staff over the past eight years, at an average annual cost of more than $125,000 each. Hiring based on population growth alone would have added just 35,500 staff, saving about $9 billion annually. The scale of waste is staggering. Canada Post, the CBC and Via Rail collectively lose more than $5 billion a year. For reference, $1 billion could buy Toyota RAV4s for over 25,600 families.

Ottawa also duplicates functions handled by provincial governments, often stepping into areas of constitutional provincial jurisdiction. Shifting federal programs in health, education, environment and welfare to the provinces could save many more billions annually. Poor infrastructure decisions have also cost Canadians dearly—most notably the $33.4 billion blown on what should have been a relatively simple expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Better project management and staffing could have prevented that disaster. Federal IT systems are another money pit, as shown by the $4-billion Phoenix payroll debacle. Then there’s the Green Slush Fund, which misallocated nearly $900 million.

Even more worrying, the rapidly expanding Old Age Supplement and Guaranteed Income Security programs are unfunded, unlike the Canada Pension Plan. Their combined cost is already roughly equal to the federal deficit and could soon become unmanageable.

Canada is sleepwalking toward financial ruin. A Canadian version of DOGE—Canada Accountability, Efficiency and Transparency Team, or CAETT—is urgently needed. The Office of the Auditor General does an admirable job identifying waste and poor performance, but it’s not proactive and lacks enforcement powers. At present, there is no mechanism in place to evaluate or eliminate ineffective programs. CAETT could fill that gap and help secure a prosperous future for Canadians.

Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.

© Troy Media

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.

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois 

A fourth Liberal term means higher carbon taxes and trade risks. Could Canada’s farmers and food security be on the line?

The Liberal Party, now led by Mark Carney, has secured a fourth consecutive term, albeit once again with a minority mandate. This time, however, the Liberals have a stronger hand, as they can rely not only on the NDP but also the Bloc Québécois to maintain power.

This broader base of parliamentary support could provide much-needed political stability at a crucial time, particularly as Canada prepares for a new round of trade negotiations with the United States and Mexico.

For the agri-food sector, the implications are significant. From carbon taxes to trade rules, federal decisions play a decisive role in shaping the costs and risks Canadian farmers face.

First and foremost, carbon pricing will remain a central issue. Carney has made it clear that the industrial carbon tax will stay—a policy that continues to erode the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food sector, where fuel, fertilizer and transportation costs are especially sensitive to carbon pricing. The tax, currently set at $95 per metric tonne, is scheduled to climb to $170 by 2030.

While consumers may not see this tax directly, businesses certainly do. More concerning is the Liberals’ intention to introduce a border carbon adjustment for imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing regimes. While this could theoretically protect Canadian industry, it also risks making food even more expensive for Canadian consumers, particularly if the U.S., our largest trading partner, remains uninterested in adopting similar carbon measures. Acting alone risks undermining both our food security and our global competitiveness.

Another looming issue is supply management. Although all parties pledged during the campaign not to alter Canada’s system for dairy, poultry and eggs, this framework—built on quotas and high import tariffs—is increasingly outdated. It is almost certain to come under pressure during trade negotiations. The American dairy lobby, in particular, will continue to demand greater access to Canadian markets. The Liberals have a chance to chart a more forward-looking path. Modernizing supply management could lead to a more competitive, resilient industry while providing consumers with greater choice and better prices.

The previous Parliament’s passage of Bill C-282, which sought to shield supply managed sectors from all future trade negotiations, was a deeply flawed move.

Fortunately, the new parliamentary makeup should make it far less likely that such protectionist legislation will survive. A more pragmatic approach to trade policy appears possible.

On the domestic front, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The Liberals have promised to eliminate remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade and to improve labour mobility, longstanding obstacles to the efficient movement of agri-food products across Canada. For example, differing provincial rules often prevent products like cheese, meat or wine from being sold freely across provinces, frustrating farmers and limiting consumer choice. Momentum was building before the election, and it must continue if we are serious about building a stronger domestic food economy.

Infrastructure investment is another bright spot. The Liberals pledged more than $5 billion through a Trade Diversification Corridor Fund to upgrade Canada’s severely undercapitalized export infrastructure. Strategic investment in trade gateways is overdue and critical for agri-food exporters looking to reduce reliance on the United States and expand into global markets.

Finally, the Liberal platform was alone in explicitly committing to support food processing in Canada, a crucial pillar of domestic food security. An increased focus on manufacturing will not only create jobs but also reduce reliance on imported food products, making Canada more resilient in the face of global disruptions.

Farmers have long felt sidelined by urban-centric Liberal governments. The past four years were marked by regulatory and trade clashes that deepened that divide. The hope now is that with greater political stability and a clearer focus on  competitiveness, the next four years will bring a more constructive relationship between Ottawa and Canada’s agri-food sector.

If the Liberals are serious about food security and economic growth, now is the time to reset the relationship with Canada’s farmers, not ignore them yet again.

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.