The next federal budget will shape our personal finances. It will be determined by either the Liberal or Conservative platform, with NDP influence in the event of a minority government.
These three parties didn’t deliver the fine print of their proposals until the election campaign’s final days, wooing voters over its first four weeks with slogans instead of substance. To protect our democracy in future elections, we need legislation that requires all parties to release detailed, costed platforms within the first seven days of a campaign so voters can make decisions based on evidence, not news releases.
Meanwhile, my Generation Squeeze Lab at UBC created the “Dupe-o-Meter” to help voters distinguish magical thinking from evidence-based election promises. We assess all platform projections in light of what Ottawa already budgeted in 2024 to share the following insights.
From taxes to housing, here’s what each major party is promising for your finances
The NDP falsely claims that other parties plan to cut health care.
Budget 2024 delivers $59-billion in health transfers to provinces for 2025. This figure will rise by $13-billion between now and 2028, adding 3.6 per cent a year – surpassing the anticipated rate of inflation.
To this baseline, the NDP would inject another $46-billion, the Liberals $7-billion, and the Conservatives $300-million.
While more medical investment often attracts voters, health research shows that governments are more likely to improve life expectancy and reduce avoidable deaths, including from cancer, by spending more on housing, poverty reduction and child care.
All parties promise the biggest increases for retirees.
Old Age Security (OAS) is the largest federal budget item, with $86-billion slated for 2025. The last budget promised to increase that baseline by $28-billion through 2028 – more than any other program.
All three parties would retain this increase and promise additional seniors’ benefits, with the Conservatives pledging another $8-billion, the NDP, $6-billion, and the Liberals, $2-billion.
Despite this, the parties don’t offer a real solution to eliminate poverty among seniors. No leader questions why retired couples with incomes of $180,000 receive an $18,000 OAS subsidy when some of this money could better support the half-million poor seniors.
Party platforms: Compare pledges on major issues from Trump to housing
The parties’ housing promises feature misleading claims and stretch goals.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre claims that housing prices doubled under prime minister Justin Trudeau. Some rental statistics may suggest this, but not the value of homes. According to the Canadian Real Estate Association, average home prices climbed from $444,000 in 2015 to $690,000 in 2024 – a 55-per-cent increase. Under prime minister Stephen Harper, prices rose 61 per cent.
The Conservatives propose $14-billion more for housing through tax cuts and spending between now and 2028. The Liberals would add $24-billion, and the NDP, $28-billion. While these amounts lift current housing spending by between a third and a half, more evidence is needed to discern whether the parties’ can meet their ambitious goals to double housing construction and make new units affordable.
Either way, younger Canadians continue to endure high rents and unaffordable home prices, while party leaders avoid asking older homeowners to contribute more actively to housing solutions when they have gained wealth from rising prices.
The parties offer little for postsecondary education or child care.
By comparison with increases for retirees, the 2024 federal budget plans a modest $3.5-billion increase for training over the next three years. The Liberals propose an additional $3-billion, the Conservatives, $1.4-billion, and the NDP, $300-million.
No party proposes significant increases for the $10-a-day child care system, which will stall at around $8-billion per year. This leaves funding gaps to recruit child care professionals, expand supply and reduce fees to $10.
No party presents a credible path to balance the budget.
Mark Carney’s Liberals promise to balance the “operating budget.” Since their calculation excludes OAS and other major operational expenses, the value of this achievement is limited.
The NDP’s proposed tax hikes on the wealthy fall far short of eliminating the deficit.
The Conservatives promise to shrink the deficit by slashing foreign aid, the CBC and consultants, yet still plan a significant deficit. Mr. Poilievre would have you believe his deficit will be 70 per cent smaller than Mr. Carney’s. But when we count revenue consistently in the parties’ platforms, Mr. Poilievre’s deficit is closer to three-quarters the size of Mr. Carney’s.
Some of the remaining gap reflects little spending from the Conservatives to protect the planet’s health from pollution, which puts our children in jeopardy.
Voters deserved more time with all this information. Requiring it early in future election campaigns would protect our democracy from slipping further into sloganeering.
Dr. Paul Kershaw is a policy professor at the University of British Columbia and the founder of Generation Squeeze, Canada’s leading voice for generational fairness. He offers policy advice to governments of all party stripes.
