Front Burner – "Cuts, spending, spin: The economics of party platforms"

Host: Jamie Poisson (CBC)
Guest: Erin Wary (CBC Ottawa bureau)
Date: April 25, 2025

Episode Overview

In the run-up to the 2025 Canadian federal election, host Jamie Poisson sits down with political journalist Erin Wary for an in-depth examination of the recently released fiscal platforms of Canada's two leading parties: the Liberals and the Conservatives. With both costed platforms dropped only days before the election, Poisson and Wary break down the big promises, the numbers behind the spending, and the contrasts in economic philosophy. The episode focuses on where party commitments diverge, where they converge, the credibility of their calculations, and the significant implications for Canadian voters.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Liberals’ Fiscal Platform: Spending, Deficits, and Strategy

Timestamps: 02:14 – 11:17

• Big Numbers & Immediate Reactions:
  • The central figure from the Liberal platform: $130 billion in new “measures” over four years—a sum not strictly “spending,” (includes tax cuts and reversing capital gains tax changes).
    • “The sort of big number with the Liberal platform was about 130 billion of additional investments…framed as 130 billion in new spending, but it’s more accurate to say 130 billion in new measures.” — Erin Wary [02:36]
• Key Spending Areas:
  • National defense: Major new investments.
  • Infrastructure: Significant federal money for national projects.
  • Housing: Aggressive spending to double home production.
    • Mark Carney: “We need to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian armed forces.” [06:12]
    • “...spending that goes towards buying things like military equipment or building things like infrastructure...” — Erin Wary [07:54]
• Budgeting Philosophy:
  • Splitting “operational” vs. “capital” budgeting:
    • Operational = day-to-day government and programs (aim to balance this budget).
    • Capital = large, one-off investments (willing to run deficits to finance these).
    • Carney: “Our operating budget over the next three years by cutting waste, by eliminating duplication and by deploying technology.” [07:54]
  • Carney frames this as targeted deficit spending, not open-ended profligacy.
• Criticism & Comparative Risks:
  • Critics question whether Carney truly departs from Trudeau’s fiscal style.
  • Some strategists like David Herle argue Liberals should have narrowed platform focus to avoid big-spending optics.
    • Herle: “I would have said I haven’t had time to put together my plan for X, Y or Z…but the issue…is how we are going to deal with Donald Trump.” [04:17]
  • Erin Wary notes: If Liberals HADN’T released a fully costed plan, they’d be accused of “hiding” intentions.

The “Magical Math” and Voter Trust

Timestamps: 08:17 – 11:17

• Public Service & Productivity:
  • Liberals promise savings via capping public service growth, finding “productivity” gains with technology/AI, yet without clear specifics—leaving voters to decide if they “trust” the party’s expertise.
    • “His response is…‘I’ve managed things, I’ve run things, I know how to do this. I can be trusted to do this responsibly.’” — Erin Wary, on Carney [09:58]
• Economic Catalysis:
  • Carney emphasizes “catalyzing” private sector growth through federal investment.
    • “He talks a lot about using government to catalyze the private sector.” — Erin Wary [10:52]

The Conservatives’ Fiscal Platform: Lower Taxes, Spending, and Questionable Assumptions

Timestamps: 12:06 – 16:49

• Broad Picture:
  • The platform aligns with Pierre Poilievre’s low-tax, low-spending message.
    • Poilievre: “It is a plan that will lower taxes and debt by getting rid of bureaucracy, consulting fees, waste…” [12:23]
  • Biggest Promise: Personal income tax cut (cut by 15%) for nearly $2,000 yearly savings for an average family.
    • “Conservatives will cut your income tax by 15%...” — Pierre Poilievre [12:40]
  • Plans to reduce contractor spending, save by attrition in public service, and “cut the Liberal deficit by 70%.” [13:16]
• Unique Economic Projections ("Counting Chickens Before They Hatch"):
  • Conservatives include future anticipated revenue from presumed economic growth (esp. from housing).
  • Such projections are not standard in party platforms and make direct apples-to-apples comparisons with the Liberals challenging.
    • “They have essentially booked that projected federal revenue into their platform... Parties typically don't build in projections like that.” — Erin Wary [13:32]
  • Stripping out those projections, the deficit difference between Liberals and Conservatives narrows (with both running significant deficits).
    • “If you take the revenue out... you get deficits over four years of about $160 billion [CPC], and... about $225 billion [Libs]...” — Erin Wary [14:36]

Overlaps and Real Differences

Timestamps: 15:26 – 16:49

• Where They’re Alike:
  • Both plan income tax cuts (Conservative’s are larger/longer-term).
  • Similar ambitions for national defense spending.
  • Both vow to cut spending on outside consultants/contractors.
  • Both want to help municipalities with development charges to spur housing.
• Where They Really Diverge:
  • Economic Philosophy:
    • Conservatives: Small government, let the market lead; government to “get out of the way.”
    • Liberals: Government’s active role when private sector “backs off.”
  • Housing: Liberals propose a new crown corporation; Conservatives do not.

Consultant Cuts, CBC Funding, and Realistic Savings

Timestamps: 17:03 – 20:54

• Consultant Savings:
  • Both parties target federal outsourcing (with recent scandals—McKinsey, ArriveCan—as context).
    • Real limits to such cuts: Curtailing contractors may require expanding permanent public service, creating a potential policy contradiction.
    • “It’s very easy to say…‘fewer reports’...but at what point are you cutting into fundamental government programs?” — Erin Wary [18:09]
• CBC Defunding (Conservative Policy):
  • The Conservative platform includes cutting English-language CBC as a source of savings ($2.4 billion over 4 years), but these are “a small portion” relative to overall deficit figures.
    • “With all due respect to us, [the CBC] is not really the linchpin of these fiscal costings.” — Erin Wary [20:09]

Why Platforms Come Late—and Why It Matters

Timestamps: 20:54 – 23:28

• Late Releases:
  • Both platforms dropped after millions had already voted in early polls.
    • “By the time the Liberals released theirs, I think like a million people had already voted...when the conservatives dropped theirs…I think it’s like seven million people voted in early voting.” — Jamie Poisson [21:57]
  • Wary notes that parties prefer to cluster “big news” late in campaigns to keep momentum, but this disadvantages voters seeking time for scrutiny.
• Comparative Calculation Issues:
  • Calls for a standard “same math” rule for costing platforms—“apples to apples”—but it’d be hard to legislate in practice.

What Voters Should Focus On

Timestamps: 23:28 – 25:18

• "They're All Spending Like a Bajillion Dollars..."
  • Despite talk of restraint, both platforms feature massive spending and deficits.
    • “Federal finances are broadly sustainable at this point—we’re not teetering on the edge of a debt crisis…” — Erin Wary [23:46]
  • The true value of platforms: They reveal party priorities and governing philosophy, even if delivery remains uncertain.

Final Days & Campaign Dynamics

Timestamps: 25:18 – 27:59

• Tightening Polls:
  • Race narrows (Libs hold a 3–4 point lead in CBC’s tracker).
• Key Messages:
  • Poilievre: “Change.”
  • Carney: Who do you want leading Canada with Trump returning to the White House?
• Campaign Strategy:
  • Leaders’ travel schedules (e.g., Poilievre visiting Alberta/Saskatchewan) hint at internal party confidence and electoral calculations.

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• “So much of this around these costed platforms just ultimately comes down to whether you, as a voter, trust them to do what they say that they're going to do and who do you believe more?” — Jamie Poisson [09:42]
• “Carney loves the word catalyze. He talks a lot about using government to catalyze the private sector.” — Erin Wary [10:52]
• “They have essentially booked that projected federal revenue into their platform…Parties typically don't build in projections like that into their platforms.” — Erin Wary [13:32]
• “The difference between them shrinks…in terms of debt to GDP…the difference…is really just a couple of percentage points either way.” — Erin Wary [14:36]
• “It shouldn’t be too much to ask…but the political logic is on the side of waiting a while, and unless there’s a price to be paid for waiting, they’re going to wait.” — Erin Wary [21:57]
• “The best way to sort of piece through [the platforms] is…to look at what they’re spending the money on and what it says about their priorities and how they would govern.” — Erin Wary [23:46]

Useful Timestamps

• [02:14] - Start of in-depth Liberal platform discussion
• [06:01] - Breakdown of Liberal platform’s key spending areas
• [12:06] - Overview and breakdown of Conservative platform
• [14:32] - Analysis of deficit numbers and revenue assumptions
• [17:03] - Consultant contract savings and procurement scandals
• [19:19] - CBC funding and Conservative savings estimates
• [20:54] - Problems with late release and lack of standardization
• [23:28] - Addressing public concern over high spending
• [25:18] - Campaign update: tightening polls and leadership messaging

Summary

This Front Burner episode peers beyond spin and surface math, comparing Liberal and Conservative fiscal promises as the election nears. Both platforms are ambitious, with huge numbers and pledges to balance “prudence” and progress. The real difference lies not just in the math, but the governing vision—and as Jamie and Erin note, voters are ultimately choosing whom to trust to set and stick to those priorities.