Connect with us

Business

Canadians Torn Between Investment and Deficit in Federal Budget

Editorial

Published

on

Canadians are currently divided on whether Prime Minister Mark Carney should prioritize significant investments or focus on reducing the federal deficit in his upcoming budget. A survey conducted for CTV News by Nanos Research highlights this split, indicating a nuanced shift in public sentiment regarding fiscal policy.

The survey asked Canadians to choose between investing in programs and balancing the budget to alleviate the tax burden. In pre-COVID-19 polling, a substantial 55 percent of respondents supported balancing the budget, compared to 43 percent who favored running a deficit to fund additional programs. A mere 2 percent expressed uncertainty. By February 2023, the preference for deficits had declined to 35 percent, while support for balancing the budget remained steady at 56 percent.

Recent findings show that opinions on budget priorities are closely aligned: 47 percent of Canadians now prefer running a deficit for investments, while 48 percent lean towards focusing on budget reduction. The remaining 5 percent are undecided. According to Nik Nanos, chief data scientist and founder of Nanos Research, this shift reflects a growing acceptance of short-term deficits as a means of investment.

Public Priorities Reflect Economic Pressures

Carney’s upcoming budget is poised to represent a significant departure from previous fiscal strategies. Nanos emphasized that even with potential fiscal tightening, the government would not be granted “carte blanche” to run persistent deficits. Instead, there appears to be a growing acknowledgment of the importance of investing in infrastructure, economic growth, and job creation.

The economic pressures facing Canadians are evident, particularly in light of the recent drop in GDP reported in August. When asked to rank their priorities for the federal budget, 30 percent of Canadians identified health care as the most significant concern. This figure, however, marks a notable decline of 19 percentage points from 2023, when nearly half of respondents emphasized health care as a priority.

Instead, new areas of concern have emerged, including housing, which garnered 12 percent of the vote, followed by inflation relief at 6 percent, defense spending at 5 percent, and tariff relief at 4 percent. These emerging priorities were not present in the 2023 survey, indicating a shift in public focus.

Nanos noted that many Canadians are currently preoccupied with immediate financial concerns such as rent and grocery costs, alongside job security. He stated, “For average Canadians, what they want to see is no cuts to health care at this particular point in time but they’re going to want to see investments in the long term.” He emphasized that in the short term, investments in infrastructure and job creation are crucial for reducing reliance on the United States.

Survey Methodology and Implications

The Nanos Research survey was conducted using a random digit dialing (RDD) method, combining both landline and cell-line interviews. A total of 1,045 Canadians, aged 18 and older, participated in the survey between October 27 and 30, 2025. The results carry a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The findings were weighted by age and gender to accurately represent the Canadian population based on the latest census data.

As the federal budget approaches, the division in priorities among Canadians illustrates the complexities of balancing economic growth with fiscal responsibility. Carney’s decisions in the coming weeks will likely reflect these competing interests, shaping the economic landscape for Canadians in the near future.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.