Earlier this year, the Public Service Commission of Canada reported that the federal civil service is reaching its limits. Record new highs. Ottawa employed 357,247 civil servants in 2023, according to data from the Treasury Board Secretariat.
This also represents a significant increase compared to the situation for civil servants when Justin Trudeau’s government took office in 2015. At the time, TBS said the number of federal civil servants employed was 257,034.
But something else that reached record levels in 2023 is Canada itself. And given the fact that the countries served by the federal government are constantly growing, it may make more sense to measure the size of public services as a percentage of the total population.
In 2023, federal civil servants made up 0.90% of Canada’s population. This is still larger than her share of the population in 2015 (0.72%). But it’s not a record.
According to TBS data dating back to 1980, the share of federal civil servants in the population peaked at 0.99 percent in 1983 and 1984. After that, this number started to drop, but it was still more than 0.90 percent annually. From 1980 to 1992.
On the eve of the Liberal government’s eighth budget, and with the size and shape of the federal government at the center of political debate, we assess what has changed during Trudeau’s time in Ottawa and put it into historical context. It’s worth positioning yourself.
And on some broad indicators, the trends are similar to what data on public services shows. Under Prime Minister Trudeau, the federal government is bigger than it was in 2015, but it’s still not as big as it used to be.
Prime Minister Trudeau reversed the trend toward small government.
Federal government spending, revenue, and debt can also be measured relative to the size of Canada’s economy. This allows for extensive historical comparisons.
In the last full fiscal year of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, total program spending was 12.8 percent of GDP. In the most recent fiscal year (2022-2023), total program spending amounted to 16.1% of GDP.
(The original version of this article incorrectly used program spending figures that excluded net actuarial losses and gains related to pensions and benefits. The 2019 government accounting changes resulted in these actuarial The numbers above are now listed separately to compare the numbers across decades, so the actuarial numbers are now 12.8 percent instead of 12.5 percent for 2014-2015. %, and the 2022-23 spending was 16.1 percent instead of 15.8 percent. Other figures have been revised below.
That’s no small increase. But 16.1% is still below the peak of 18.3% in 1984, when there was no pandemic.
The revenue numbers tell a similar story.
In 1992, federal revenues were 18.0% of GDP. After several rounds of broad-based tax cuts, including the Harper government’s decision to cut the GST by 2 percentage points, federal government revenues totaled 14.0% of GDP in 2015. Last year’s revenue was 16.1%.
Federal debt as a share of GDP is also higher than in 2015, but still below its peak. Last year’s debt-to-GDP ratio was 42.2. In 2015 it was 31.5.
But a simple line chart shows how much of that increase is due to the pandemic. In the last full year before the coronavirus pandemic hit the world, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 31.2.
The federal debt burden ratio was 1.3% of GDP last year, but is expected to rise to 1.8% next year. Last year, when Harper took office, the public debt burden rate was 1.2%. However, the public debt burden has also increased several times over the past few decades.
Looking at federal spending as a percentage of GDP is not the only way to measure the size of government. per capita expenditureFor example, it suggests that the federal government is spending more than ever before.
But per capita spending also suggests that Mr. Harper ran the second-most expensive federal government in history. Even conservatives may be reluctant to adopt the metric.
When assessing a country’s fiscal health, the state-level situation must also be considered. Much will be revealed next week about the current state of the federal budget deficit, with eight states currently projecting deficits for next year.
However, when viewed in the context of the past 40 years relative to GDP, the Trudeau Liberals have bucked a 30-year trend toward smaller federal governments by reducing the government to its pre-government size. could not be returned to. The cut has begun.
The right size of government?
Even the Liberals may admit that some of their spending space was created by the restraints imposed by the previous government. But a more active government is also essentially what they promised in 2015, symbolized by their clear decision to run a deficit.
“What I tell people is that Canadians actually wanted all of that new spending in one form or another,” Tyler Meredith, a former senior policy adviser in the Trudeau government, said in an interview this week. Told. “What they wanted was [Canada Child Benefit], they wanted to invest in indigenous communities. They wanted additional defense spending. They wanted to invest in decarbonization and climate action. ”
One way to look at this change, Meredith said, is that “what we learned through the 2000s is that perhaps government has become too small. And now, we actually have some big challenges. “In contrast, we have a government of a truly appropriate size.” we face. ”
A more complete accounting will be needed to account for everything that contributed to the increase in government spending. But the Liberals will no doubt be happy to point out a few things.
According to the government’s own statistics, spending on indigenous communities increased from $11 billion in 2016 to $30 billion in 2024. The Canada Child Benefit consolidated several existing programs, but added funding and later became indexed to inflation. In 2021, new funding for childcare was introduced. And the federal government is currently spending billions more on housing and clean technology.
(Federal carbon taxes and rebates also add 0.3% of GDP to total revenues and expenditures.)
Conservative leader Pierre Poièvre tends not to focus on such things when he talks about reducing the size of government. He likes to talk about funding the Canada Infrastructure Bank and public service spending on management consultancies and projects like ArriveCan.
It remains to be seen whether Mr. Poilievre will be able to come up with a plan to balance the budget in the short term while focusing on things voters don’t really care about. But the use of outside contractors in public services means that no matter the size of the government, The talent and resources you have are also important. And solving that problem may require even more investment.
How big should the federal government be?
Sean Speer, former policy advisor to Stephen Harper, I have written Last fall, he said the federal government will now reflect “Stephen Harper’s tax rates and Justin Trudeau’s spending preferences,” and that the two are “ultimately incompatible.” Speer concluded that something had to give.
As mentioned above, Speer’s framework is not entirely accurate – federal government revenues have increased since the Conservatives left government. Meredith points out that these tax increases were achieved without widespread tax increases. Trudeau’s government increased taxes on people earning more than $200,000 shortly after he took office, but has since focused largely on closing loopholes and ensuring compliance.
However, there is still a gap between income and expenditure. Looking far into the future, last fall’s economic update predicted a $15 billion deficit in 2029. And Meredith said there is a debate to be had about whether more revenue is needed to meet further demands from health care to national defense to decarbonization.
a Opinion poll published by the Angus Reid Institute A survey last week found that 59 per cent of Canadians think the federal government spends “too much.” But that sentiment plummeted when respondents were asked about specific spending areas. Just 22 per cent of those surveyed said Ottawa spends too much on social programs, and 32 per cent said environmental measures are costing more than they’re worth.
![Camp Aldershot is a military training facility located in Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley. Soldiers from the Canadian 36th Signals Regiment train at Camp Aldershot in April 2016.](https://i.cbc.ca/1.7094463.1712953738!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/soldier-binoculars-camp-aldershot.jpg)
Conversely, 48% of respondents said the government’s defense spending was “too low.” These voters may want Canada to meet NATO’s defense spending targets, but parliamentary budget officials say it will take an additional $13 billion to $18 billion a year to meet the targets. It is reported that
All these numbers point to what could be a significant debate over the next year and a half about how the federal government has evolved, and what it should be and do in the future.