By Walter Beaver and Francis “Franky” Facts | North of Polite Fact Desk

When you’re putting groceries back on the shelf or sending out résumés and hearing nothing, a federal budget can feel like a conversation happening somewhere else. Pierre Poilievre says Mark Carney’s budget will add $765 billion in new debt over five years and make food, fuel and housing more expensive. Ottawa says it’s making life more affordable and keeping immigration at sustainable levels. Both sides owe Canadians a clearer explanation, starting with what the $765 billion measures and ending with a question people looking for work would recognize. When an employer says there’s nobody here to hire, what does Ottawa actually check?

What the $765 billion measures

Ottawa projects a $62.3-billion deficit for 2026–27. That’s the gap between what the government expects to take in and what it records as expenses. The five projected annual deficits add up to $288.7 billion. Over the same period, the budget projects an increase of about $287 billion in federal debt, measured as the accumulated deficit.

The $765 billion is how much cash Ottawa expects to need over five years to cover those deficits and other transactions, including loans, investments and purchases of assets. Think of a loan the government makes. Cash goes out the door, and the government gets an asset in return because someone owes it that money. Ottawa still needs to finance the loan. It goes on the books differently from an expense.

Calling the entire $765 billion “new debt” makes it easy to confuse the cash Ottawa needs to raise with the projected increase in the budget’s federal-debt measure. On social media, the bigger number fits neatly on a graphic. The distinction takes a paragraph. Whatever the reason for choosing that wording, readers deserve to know which number they’re being shown. The claim that this financing will drive up the price of food, gas and homes also needs evidence of its own.

Carney’s promises deserve the same scrutiny. A proposed one-time grocery supplement can help an eligible household pay a bill. Temporary fuel-tax relief can help at the pump while it lasts. A renter will judge the housing money by whether an affordable home opens in a place they can live. Ottawa should be able to say who gets help, how much and when.

Why keep immigration at these levels?

Canada’s unemployment rate was 6.7% in October. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates that restoring housing affordability to 2019 levels would require 430,000 to 480,000 new homes a year over a decade. If you’re looking for work, facing another rent increase or trying to find a place to live at all, it’s reasonable to ask why Ottawa didn’t lower the targets further.

The plan sets annual targets of 380,000 permanent resident admissions and 370,000 new temporary worker and student arrivals through 2029. Ottawa had already set those headline targets for 2027 and 2028. They’re lower than earlier peaks, and some people granted permanent residence already live here. Adding the two targets together would overstate how many people would newly arrive.

Ottawa says earlier cuts will slow population growth and give housing and services time to catch up. It also wants to fill specific labour shortages, reunite families and meet humanitarian commitments. Those are different reasons for admitting people. Granting permanent residence to someone already working here has a different immediate effect on housing demand from bringing in a new worker who needs a place to live. We found no public evidence that a recent trade deal requires Ottawa to keep these national targets.

The government has explained why it wants immigration to continue. It still needs to show why it chose these numbers. Which communities have the jobs, homes and services to support the people expected to settle there? Where are those services already stretched? If housing and services fall further behind, what would cause Ottawa to change course? Slower population growth can give builders time to catch up. People already sleeping in shelters or outside still need homes they can afford and, in some cases, support to stay housed.

When an employer says nobody here wants the job

Canada can have people out of work and still have genuine shortages. Someone looking for warehouse work in Hamilton can’t fill a nursing vacancy in a northern community. But when a warehouse says it can’t find workers, the questions are simple. What wage and hours did it offer? Who applied? Why were qualified people turned down? A job can be hard to fill because the right skills are scarce. It can also be hard to fill because the pay and hours make it difficult for someone to take it. Ottawa should know which situation it’s dealing with.

Of the 220,000 new temporary worker arrivals targeted annually, 50,000 are under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and 170,000 are under the International Mobility Program. Employers using the first program generally have to show that Canadians or permanent residents aren’t available for the job. The second covers several kinds of permits and generally operates without that same labour-market test. Permission to hire through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program is separate from a wage subsidy, which helps an employer pay wages.

There’s a case for rewarding employers who hire and train people already here who are struggling to get a foothold. Make the help temporary and tie it to fair wages, meaningful hours, training and keeping the worker on. Paying an employer for a hire it would have made anyway does little for the person still sending out résumés.

There’s also a case for enforcing the penalties already on the books. Employers who falsify recruitment records, underpay workers or break program conditions should face consequences. Ottawa can impose penalties of up to $100,000 per violation, capped at $1 million per year, and ban employers for serious violations. Enforcing those rules protects local applicants and temporary workers alike. Employers that can demonstrate a genuine shortage should still have a way to fill it.

Carney should show how his budget and immigration plan fit the jobs, homes and services available. Poilievre should say what he’d change, what it would save and how those savings would reach a household. And before Ottawa signs off on an employer’s claim that nobody here wants the job, it should ask one question. Did the employer offer a job someone here could afford to take?

© 2026 North of Polite. Original reporting, analysis and commentary. All rights reserved. 🍁