Why Did Canada Spend Billions on Consultants?

TL;DR

Canada spent $21 billion annually on federal consultants, about $1,400 per family, even as the federal bureaucracy grew by 40%, according to Pierre Poilievre. He argues that this duplication contributed to a $61 billion deficit and poorer public services, and calls for a smaller government, lower costs, and greater reliance on the free market.

Transcript

the deficit this year was 61 billion that was last year's deficit sorry last year last year and there's 40 million people in Canada and so that's $1,500 per person Federal overspending and that's $6,000 essentially per family so just for everybody watching and listening your federal government spent $6,000 of your family's money last year going ove... Read More

Key Insights

• Canada's reported $61 billion federal deficit equals roughly $1,500 per person or $6,000 per family when divided across a population of about 40 million. Poilievre presents this calculation as the amount spent beyond federal revenues during the previous year.
• Federal consulting expenses are described as reaching $21 billion annually, or approximately $1,400 per Canadian family. The discussion emphasizes that this is presented as a recurring yearly expense rather than an isolated, one-time government cost.
• The federal bureaucracy grew by 40% under Trudeau, according to the discussion, while spending on outside consultants also increased substantially. Poilievre argues that hiring more employees and outsourcing more work simultaneously creates costly duplication without producing better government services.
• Consultants can cost around $600 per hour, according to the conversation, making some outside personnel more expensive than federal employees. The speakers question why consultants are needed on this scale when a larger permanent bureaucracy is supposedly available to perform government work.
• Canada's population grew by 1.2 million in 2023 from a base of about 40 million people. Poilievre characterizes that pace as damaging to housing, the job market, and the health care system, while noting that Trudeau subsequently changed his position.
• Quebec separatism is portrayed as regaining political strength after having diminished during the Harper era. The speakers say the Parti Québécois was leading in Quebec polls and had begun making economic arguments that separation could offer an alternative to weak national economic management.
• Poilievre attributes Canada's problems to what he calls authoritarian socialism, describing Trudeau's governing approach as seeking extensive control over money, speech, thought, and industry. This is a political interpretation advanced by Poilievre, not an independently established conclusion within the clip.
• Trudeau's political position is described as unstable because his deputy prime minister had resigned, his cabinet had been shuffled, and at least one-third of his caucus allegedly lacked confidence in him. The speakers argue that Jagmeet Singh and the NDP nevertheless continued supporting the government.

Questions & Answers

Q: How much did Canada spend on federal consultants?

The discussion states that Canada was spending $21 billion per year on federal government consultants. Poilievre calculates that amount as approximately $1,400 in federal taxes for every Canadian family. He stresses that the figure represents a recurring annual expense, not a one-time cost, and questions why it increased while the permanent federal bureaucracy was also expanding.

Q: How large was Canada's federal deficit per family?

Poilievre says the previous year's federal deficit was $61 billion. Using a Canadian population of about 40 million, he calculates the deficit at roughly $1,500 per person and approximately $6,000 per family. He describes this as spending beyond available federal revenue, on top of the taxes already collected from individuals and businesses.

Q: Why does Poilievre criticize federal consulting spending?

Poilievre criticizes consulting expenses because they allegedly reached $21 billion annually while the federal bureaucracy had also grown by 40%. In his view, the government paid for more permanent employees and then outsourced work those employees should have performed. He also claims that some consultants cost around $600 per hour while government services delivered poorer results.

Q: What solution does Poilievre propose for federal overspending?

Poilievre calls for reducing the size and cost of the federal government and allowing the free market to play a larger role in the economy. He argues that the government collects substantial revenue through marginal, carbon, payroll, business, and capital gains taxes but still runs deficits. His proposed direction is lower government expenditure rather than continued bureaucratic expansion.

Q: How does the discussion connect immigration with Canada's economic problems?

The speakers state that Canada's population grew by 1.2 million in 2023 from a base of about 40 million people. Poilievre argues that admitting people at that pace created serious pressure on housing, employment, and the health care system. The conversation also says Trudeau later reduced or reversed the policy after previously criticizing people who questioned it.

Q: Why is Quebec separatism discussed as a growing concern?

The speakers say Quebec separatism had largely faded during the Harper era but was making a resurgence, with the Parti Québécois leading in Quebec polls. They argue that weak national economic performance allowed separatists to claim Quebec might be economically better off outside Canada. Poilievre says he intends to counter that argument by strengthening the Canadian economy.

Q: How do the speakers describe Trudeau's political ideology?

Poilievre describes Trudeau's governing philosophy as a radical form of socialism that favors extensive state control over personal finances, speech, thought, and economic industries. Peterson adds that Trudeau's Liberals moved far beyond the historically centrist position of the Liberal Party. These descriptions are the speakers' political judgments and are presented as their explanation for Canada's difficulties.

Q: Why do the speakers say Trudeau remained in power?

The conversation says Trudeau's authority had become shaky following his deputy prime minister's resignation, a cabinet shuffle, numerous controversies, and alleged dissatisfaction among at least one-third of his caucus. Peterson and Poilievre contend that Jagmeet Singh and the New Democratic Party kept the government in office despite Singh publicly presenting himself as an opponent of Trudeau's administration.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Poilievre says the federal government recorded a $61 billion deficit last year, equivalent to roughly $1,500 per Canadian or $6,000 per family. He argues that this overspending occurred despite high marginal, carbon, payroll, business, and capital gains taxes, while provincial deficits added further pressure to public finances.

• The discussion focuses on $21 billion in annual federal consulting expenses, calculated as approximately $1,400 per Canadian family. Poilievre considers this spending especially difficult to justify because the federal bureaucracy grew by 40% while outsourced consultants could cost around $600 per hour and public services allegedly produced worse results.

• Peterson and Poilievre connect fiscal policy with immigration, weakened institutions, political ideology, and national unity. They discuss population growth of 1.2 million in 2023, pressure on housing, jobs, and health care, the resurgence of Quebec separatism, internal Liberal dissatisfaction, and the NDP's continued support for Trudeau's government.