It’s time for an honest conversation about the costs of new federal programs

The Trudeau government will table its next budget on April 16, and with the government’s push on the initial steps of national pharmacare, it’s important to remember there’s a cost Canadians must pay for new and expanded government services.

In March, the Trudeau government and the NDP reached an agreement to introduce the first steps of a national pharmacare program that will initially cover diabetes drugs and contraceptives, but may eventually grow to cover far more. This marks the third major national social program introduced by the Trudeau government in recent years, accompanying the $10-a-day daycare and national dental care programs promised in Budget 2022.

These policies represent an approach by the federal government to expand its role in the funding and provision of social services—an approach which has support among Canadians. Polling data from 2022, which sought to understand Canadian views on new spending programs, revealed the majority of respondents supported $10-a-day daycare (69 per cent), pharmacare (79 per cent) and dental care (72 per cent)—when there were no costs attached.

The Trudeau government has chosen to fund these new programs primarily using debt. Through planned deficits and rising debt interest costs for the foreseeable future, Ottawa is shifting much of the burden of paying for today’s services onto future generations of Canadians. Put differently, the new services are not free, and must ultimately be paid for through higher taxes in the future because debt comes with costs.

It’s therefore informative to look at what happens to the popularity of these programs when the true costs are communicated to Canadians. Polling data clearly shows these new programs lose considerable support when linked to a direct cost in the form of an increase in the federal goods and services tax (GST). Indeed, support for government-funded pharmacare, dental care and daycare plummeted to well below 50 per cent of respondents if the services are paid for by increased taxes.

This is the key difference between Canada and countries such as Sweden or Denmark, which are often used as examples of countries that maintain expansive social services and income supports. These countries have gone much further than Canada regarding government provision of services, but have paid for it through corresponding tax increases applied to individuals and families today rather than through borrowed money. Moreover, the tax burden falls primarily on the middle class, which utilizes these services the most, as opposed to concentrating tax hikes on top income earners.

For example, Swedes earning more than US$62,000 per year face the country’s top marginal personal income tax rate of 52.3 per cent. In comparison, although Canada’s top marginal rate (53.5 per cent) is roughly the same level as Sweden’s, it doesn’t kick in until earnings of nearly US$177,000. Moreover, both Sweden and Denmark maintain a national sales tax rate of 25 per cent, while Canadians face sales taxes ranging from 5 per cent to 15 per cent (depending on the province). Simply put, the Nordic countries fund expansive government through high taxes on their citizens.

To put the cost of national dental care, day care and the first steps of pharmacare in context, an increase in the GST to 6 per cent from its current 5 per cent would be insufficient to pay for an estimated annual cost of at least $13 billion on these programs.

In recent years, the Trudeau government has introduced substantial social services without the corresponding tax increases required to pay for them. But increased federal spending will require higher taxes for families either today or in the future, and Canadians must remember this when deciding if they truly want these new programs.

Authors:

Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Up Next

Canada’s border agency says low risk of COVID spreading via paper used to justify ArriveCAN

Don't Miss

Canada wallows on LNG sidelines, paralyzed by Ottawa’s onerous regulatory system

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

Opinion: Trump Making ‘Sex’ Great Again On Day One Of Presidency

Business / 4 hours ago

Trump’s Initial DOGE Executive Order Doesn’t Quite ‘Dismantle Government Bureaucracy’

International / 8 hours ago

California’s soaring electricity rates strain consumers, impact climate goals

Business

Trump’s Initial DOGE Executive Order Doesn’t Quite ‘Dismantle Government Bureaucracy’

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Thomas English

President Donald Trump’s Monday executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) presents a more modest scope for the initiative, focusing primarily on “modernizing federal technology and software.”

The executive order refashions the Obama-era United States Digital Service (USDS) into the United States DOGE Service. Then-President Barack Obama created USDS in 2014 to enhance the reliability and usability of online federal services after the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov, an insurance exchange website created through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Trump’s USDS will now prioritize “modernizing federal technology and software to maximize efficiency and productivity” under the order, which makes no mention of slashing the federal budget, workforce or regulations — DOGE’s originally advertised purpose.

“I am pleased to announce that the Great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency (‘DOGE’),” Trump said in his official announcement of the initiative in November. “Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess government regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.”

The order’s focus on streamlining federal technology and software stands in contrast to some of DOGE’s previously more expansive aims, including Elon Musk’s claim that “we can [cut the federal budget] by at least $2 trillion” at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in November. Musk now leads DOGE alone after Vivek Ramaswamy stepped down from the initiative Monday, apparently eying a 2026 gubernatorial run in Ohio.

The order says it serves to “advance the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda,” but omits many of the budget-cutting and workforce-slashing proposals during Trump’s campaign. Rather, the order positions DOGE as a technology modernization entity rather than an organization with direct authority to enact sweeping fiscal reforms. There is no mention, for instance, of trillions in budget cuts or a significant reduction in the federal workforce, though the president did separately enact a hiring freeze throughout the executive branch Monday.

“I can’t help but think that there’s more coming, that maybe more responsibilities will be added to it,” Susan Dudley, a public policy professor at George Washington University, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Dudley, who was also the top regulatory official in former President George W. Bush’s administration, said the structure of the new USDS could impact the recent lawsuits against the DOGE effort.

“I think it maybe moots the lawsuit that’s been brought for it not being FACA,” Dudley said. “So if this is how it’s organized — that it’s people in the government who bring in these special government employees on a temporary basis, that might mean that the lawsuit doesn’t really have any ground.”

Three organizations — the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Security Counselors (NSC) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) — separately filed lawsuits against DOGE within minutes of Trump signing the executive order. The suits primarily challenge DOGE’s compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), alleging the department operates without the required transparency, balanced representation and public accountability.

The order also emphasizes not “be construed to impair or otherwise affect … the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.”

“And the only mention of OMB [Office of Management and Budget] is some kind of boilerplate at the end — that it doesn’t affect that. But that’s kind of general stuff you often see in executive orders,” Dudley continued, adding she doesn’t “have an inside track” on whether further DOGE-related executive orders will follow.

“It’s certainly, certainly more modest than I think Musk was anticipating,” Dudley said.

Trump’s order also establishes “DOGE Teams” consisting of at least four employees: a team lead, a human resources specialist, an engineer and an attorney. Each team will be assigned an executive agency with which it will implement the president’s “DOGE agenda.”

It remains unclear whether Monday’s executive order comprehensively defines DOGE, or if additional orders will be forthcoming to broaden its mandate.

Business

Opposition leader Poilievre calling for end of prorogation to deal with Trump’s tariffs

Published on January 21, 2025

Todayville

From Conservative Party Communications

The Hon. Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Official Opposition, released the following statement on the threat of tariffs from the US:

“Canada is facing a critical challenge. On February 1st we are facing the risk of unjustified 25% tariffs by our largest trading partner that would have damaging consequences across our country. Our American counterparts say they want to stop the illegal flow of drugs and other criminal activity at our border. The Liberal government admits their weak border is a problem. That is why they announced a multibillion-dollar border plan—a plan they cannot fund because they shut down Parliament, preventing MPs and Senators from authorizing the funds.

“We also need retaliatory tariffs, something that requires urgent Parliamentary consideration.

“Yet, Liberals have shut Parliament in the middle of this crisis. Canada has never been so weak, and things have never been so out of control. Liberals are putting themselves and their leadership politics ahead of the country. Freeland and Carney are fighting for power rather than fighting for Canada.

“Common Sense Conservatives are calling for Trudeau to reopen Parliament now to pass new border controls, agree on trade retaliation and prepare a plan to rescue Canada’s weak economy.

“The Prime Minister has the power to ask the Governor General to cut short prorogation and get our Parliament working.

“Open Parliament. Take back control. Put Canada First.”