Coffee with GROK, part 1.

This morning, I asked GROK questions I began to consider last night at an All Candidates event where Conservative MP Jamie Schmale was staged with Dr. Nell Thomas, Liberal challenger.

First Impressions.

Dr. Nell Thomas is a respected family physician. At a time when many Canadian families can’t find a family physician, it saddened me that she would enter federal politics and, if elected, abandon her practice and the many residents who depend on her.

The fact that she is running as a Liberal candidate is no surprise. As a woman, her instincts would lead her to campaign as a caregiver over the “protect and defend” instincts more commonly associated with men. Moreover, a lifetime of service in medicine would surely have imbedded those caregiver instincts to the very core of her being.

Nell’s Liberal caregiver ambitions were on full display last night. Like her web site, there is precious little information about her policy priorities. Like most Liberals I have know the four-letter word “need” seems to be the only factor one a Liberal needs to consider when public spending choices are under consideration. Concerns for “ability to pay” are rarely invoked.

Why politics?

Dr. Thomas’s expertise is in family medicine and, for the life of me, I can’t understand why a devoted caregiver, with her credentials and life experience, would prompt her to enter a field in which she is totally out of her depth.

As a political candidate, Nell is woefully unprepared for the role as Member of Parliament. Her understanding of economics, business, and the realities of politics in Parliament are an inch deep and demonstrably naive.

Jamie has my vote.

I have known and respected Jamie Schmale for many years and admire his dedication, understanding of economics and his political acumen.

After witnessing his and Nell’s performance last night, Jamie is hands down the best candidate for this riding.

The creeping growth of unrestrained governments have concerned me since 1979. The following conversation with GROK gives context to those concerns.

My questions for GROK

1️⃣ When did the Canadian federal government shift in its focus from “to serve and protect” to be the national caregiver?

🥸 The phrase “to serve and protect” is most commonly associated with police services, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and reflects a focus on public safety and law enforcement. The idea of the Canadian federal government shifting to a “national caregiver” role suggests a reorientation toward prioritizing social welfare, healthcare, and support for caregivers, particularly in response to aging populations, disability needs, and caregiving challenges. However, there is no evidence of an explicit, formal policy shift where the government replaced “to serve and protect” with a “national caregiver” mandate. Instead, this shift appears to be a gradual evolution in federal priorities, driven by demographic changes, public health demands, and policy initiatives, particularly since the early 2000s and intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Points on the Evolution

1. Historical Context of “To Serve and Protect”:

• The motto “to serve and protect” is not a formal federal government slogan but is tied to policing and public safety. The RCMP’s mission, for example, emphasizes maintaining peace and upholding the law, reflecting this ethos.

• Federal priorities in the 20th century often balanced economic growth, national security, and social programs, with healthcare and welfare systems (e.g., Medicare, established in the 1960s) laying the groundwork for caregiving roles.

2. Emergence of Caregiving as a Federal Priority:

• Aging Population and Demographic Shifts: Canada’s aging population (with over 20% of citizens expected to be 65+ by 2030) has increased demand for home care, long-term care, and caregiver support. This demographic reality has pushed the federal government to address caregiving needs more explicitly.

• Early Caregiving Programs: Programs like the Live-In Caregiver Program (established in 1992, reformed in 2014) marked early federal involvement in caregiving, initially focused on immigration and labor market needs for child and senior care.

• Tax Credits and Benefits: The introduction of the Canada Caregiver Credit (2017) and enhancements to Compassionate Care Benefits (expanded in the 2000s) signaled growing recognition of unpaid caregivers. These provided financial relief for those caring for family members with impairments or serious illnesses.

3. Post-2015 Acceleration:

• Budget 2017 and Beyond: The federal government began significant investments in caregiving infrastructure, including $2.4 billion over four years for home and community care (Budget 2017) and $3 billion over five years for long-term care standards (Budget 2021). These investments aimed to support caregivers and improve care quality.

• COVID-19 Catalyst: The pandemic (2020–2022) exposed weaknesses in long-term care and caregiving systems, highlighting the essential role of caregivers. Temporary measures like the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (2020) provided financial support for caregivers unable to work due to caregiving duties.

• Aging with Dignity: The Age Well at Home initiative (extended to 2025–2026 with $90 million) supports seniors aging at home, reflecting a caregiving focus over institutional care.

4. National Caregiving Strategy (2024–2025):

• In Budget 2024, the federal government announced plans to develop a National Caregiving Strategy, with consultations launched to address the needs of over 8 million Canadian caregivers (1 in 4 Canadians). This strategy, championed by the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence (CCCE), aims to provide financial support, improve caregiver well-being, and ensure workplace flexibility.

• The strategy’s announcement in April 2024 and its release in February 2025 mark a significant milestone, positioning caregiving as a cornerstone of federal health and social policy. It emphasizes five pillars: caregiver supports, workplace flexibility, financial aid for care recipients, a sustainable care workforce, and government leadership.

• This move has been described as making caregiving “the next frontier in Canadian public policy,” indicating a deliberate shift toward a caregiver-centric framework.

5. No Formal Abandonment of “To Serve and Protect”:

• The federal government has not explicitly replaced “to serve and protect” with a caregiving mandate. Public safety remains a priority, with ongoing investments in national security, policing, and defense (e.g., $11 billion for veterans’ benefits since 2015, Budget 2024).

• Instead, caregiving has emerged as a parallel priority, reflecting a broader interpretation of “serving” Canadians through social welfare and health support.

Timeline of the Shift

• 1992: Live-In Caregiver Program introduced, signaling federal involvement in caregiving.

• 2000s: Compassionate Care Benefits expanded, offering job-protected leave for caregivers.

• 2017: Canada Caregiver Credit introduced; Budget 2017 allocates $2.4 billion for home care.

• 2020–2021: COVID-19 prompts Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit and $3 billion for long-term care standards.

• 2024: Budget 2024 announces National Caregiving Strategy consultations.

• February 2025: CCCE releases National Caregiving Strategy, urging federal action to address the caregiving crisis.

Critical Analysis

• No Explicit Shift: The phrase “national caregiver” is not an official federal slogan, unlike “to serve and protect” in policing contexts. The shift is metaphorical, reflecting increased funding and policy focus on caregiving rather than a formal rebranding.

• Balancing Priorities: The government continues to fund public safety (e.g., RCMP, defense) alongside caregiving, suggesting an expansion of roles rather than a replacement. For example, Budget 2024 allocates nearly $1 billion for Canadian Armed Forces wellness, showing sustained “protect” priorities.

• Pandemic Influence: The caregiving focus gained urgency during COVID-19, as long-term care failures and caregiver burdens became public health issues. This aligns with global trends, as countries like Italy and Japan have also prioritized caregiver support.

• Equity Concerns: Critics argue that caregiving programs (e.g., Live-In Caregiver Program) have historically undervalued migrant workers, often women, raising questions about whether the “national caregiver” focus fully addresses labor equity.

Conclusion

The Canadian federal government did not formally shift from “to serve and protect” to a “national caregiver” role at a specific moment. Instead, caregiving emerged as a growing priority from the 1990s, with significant momentum post-2015, driven by aging demographics, COVID-19, and advocacy for a National Caregiving Strategy (formalized in 2024–2025). Key milestones include the Canada Caregiver Credit (2017), major home care investments (2017–2021), and the 2025 strategy release. Public safety remains a core function, but caregiving has become a parallel focus, reflecting a broader commitment to social welfare.

2️⃣ Under which Canadian prime ministers did the shift take place the most, and what effect did this have on the size, cost and scope of authority of government institutions?

🤓 The shift in Canadian federal government focus toward a “national caregiver” role—emphasizing social welfare, healthcare, and caregiver support—evolved gradually, with no single moment or prime minister explicitly replacing the “to serve and protect” ethos. However, based on policy developments, funding increases, and institutional changes, certain prime ministers oversaw significant advancements in caregiving-related policies that align with this shift. Below, I identify the prime ministers under whom this shift was most pronounced, focusing on Jean Chrétien (1993–2003), Paul Martin (2003–2006), and Justin Trudeau (2015–2025), as their tenures marked key milestones in caregiving policy. I also analyze the effects on the size, cost, and scope of authority of government institutions, integrating relevant insights from the provided search results where applicable.

Prime Ministers and the Caregiving Shift

1. Jean Chrétien (Liberal, 1993–2003)

• Caregiving Policy Milestones:

• Live-In Caregiver Program (1992, continued under Chrétien): Formalized pathways for immigrant caregivers to work in Canada, addressing child and senior care needs. This program, while initiated under Brian Mulroney, expanded under Chrétien, reflecting federal recognition of caregiving labor.

• Health Accord (2000): Chrétien’s government negotiated the first Health Accord, increasing federal health transfers to provinces from $15.5 billion (2000/01) to $21 billion by 2005/06, with funds for medical equipment, health IT, and primary care reform. This bolstered home care and long-term care, key caregiving sectors.

• Romanow Commission (2001–2002): Chrétien commissioned this review of healthcare, which recommended raising federal cash transfers to 25% of provincial hospital and physician costs, laying groundwork for caregiving-focused health policy.

• Context: Chrétien’s tenure balanced fiscal restraint (eliminating deficits by 1997) with social investments post-1990s austerity. The aging population and rising healthcare demands prompted increased federal involvement in caregiving infrastructure.

2. Paul Martin (Liberal, 2003–2006)

• Caregiving Policy Milestones:

• 2004 Health Accord: Martin’s “fix for a generation” committed $41.3 billion over 10 years, including $35.3 billion for Canada Health Transfer growth (6% annual escalator) and funds for medical equipment and wait-time reductions. This significantly supported home and community care, easing caregiver burdens.

• Compassionate Care Benefits (2004): Expanded Employment Insurance benefits to provide up to 6 months of paid leave for Canadians caring for gravely ill family members, a direct acknowledgment of unpaid caregivers.

• Context: Martin’s brief tenure prioritized healthcare and social programs, building on Chrétien’s foundation. His focus on health transfers and caregiver benefits marked a deliberate shift toward federal caregiving support, though limited by his short term.

3. Justin Trudeau (Liberal, 2015–2025)

• Caregiving Policy Milestones:

• Canada Caregiver Credit (2017): Introduced a tax credit to support caregivers of dependents with impairments, consolidating earlier credits and signaling federal commitment to unpaid caregivers.

• Budget 2017: Allocated $2.4 billion over 4 years for home and community care, enhancing support for caregivers and seniors aging at home.

• COVID-19 Response (2020–2022): Introduced the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit, providing up to $500/week for caregivers unable to work due to caregiving duties. Budget 2021 committed $3 billion over 5 years to improve long-term care standards, addressing pandemic-related caregiving crises.

• Age Well at Home Initiative (2021–2026): Invested $90 million to support seniors aging at home, reducing institutional care reliance and supporting caregivers.

• National Caregiving Strategy (2024–2025): Budget 2024 announced consultations for a strategy, released in February 2025 by the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence. It focuses on financial aid, workplace flexibility, and a sustainable care workforce, marking caregiving as a policy “frontier.”

• Context: Trudeau’s tenure saw the most explicit caregiving focus, driven by an aging population (20% of Canadians 65+ by 2030), COVID-19’s exposure of long-term care failures, and advocacy for caregiver support. His government’s high spending and debt accumulation amplified social program investments.

Ranking the Shift:

• Trudeau (2015–2025) oversaw the most significant shift, with the National Caregiving Strategy, COVID-19 benefits, and substantial health investments formalizing caregiving as a federal priority.

• Chrétien (1993–2003) laid critical groundwork with health accords and caregiver programs, but his focus was broader (healthcare vs. caregiving specifically).

• Martin (2003–2006) advanced caregiving through health transfers and Compassionate Care Benefits, but his short tenure limited impact.

Effects on Government Institutions

The caregiving shift influenced the size, cost, and scope of authority of federal institutions, particularly in health, social services, and public administration. Below, I analyze these effects under each prime minister, drawing on policy changes and search result insights (e.g., public service growth, spending trends).

1. Size of Government Institutions

• Chrétien (1993–2003):

• Impact: Chrétien’s early tenure focused on deficit reduction, reducing public service size through Program Review (1994–1999), which cut federal jobs by ~50,000 (14% of the workforce). However, health and caregiving investments later increased staffing in Health Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) to administer programs like the Live-In Caregiver Program and health transfers.

• Evidence: The public service shrank overall, but targeted growth occurred in social program delivery, with departments like Health Canada expanding to manage accords.

• Outcome: Modest size increase in caregiving-related agencies, offset by broader cuts.

• Martin (2003–2006):

• Impact: Martin’s health-focused policies required additional personnel to implement the 2004 Health Accord and Compassionate Care Benefits. ESDC grew to administer EI-based caregiver benefits, and Health Canada expanded to oversee transfer agreements.

• Evidence: Public service growth was limited due to Martin’s short term, but health and social program staffing increased slightly to support new initiatives.

• Outcome: Incremental size growth in health and social service agencies.

• Trudeau (2015–2025):

• Impact: Trudeau’s tenure saw significant public service expansion, with federal employment growing from ~257,000 in 2015 to ~357,000 by 2023, a 39% increase. Caregiving policies (e.g., Canada Caregiver Credit, National Caregiving Strategy) drove staffing increases in Health Canada, ESDC, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, especially post-COVID.

• Evidence: The Montreal Economic Institute notes Trudeau increased public service size more than any prime minister since 1984, with personnel costs rising 32% (inflation-adjusted). Caregiving programs required new administrative roles for tax credits, benefits, and long-term care standards.

• Outcome: Significant size increase, particularly in caregiving-related departments, contributing to a larger bureaucracy.

Summary: Trudeau’s policies drove the largest institutional size increase due to extensive caregiving and social program expansion. Chrétien’s cuts limited growth, while Martin’s brief tenure saw modest increases.

2. Cost of Government Institutions

• Chrétien (1993–2003):

• Impact: Chrétien’s deficit elimination reduced overall federal spending early on, but the 2000 Health Accord increased health transfers by $5.5 billion over 5 years, raising costs for Health Canada and ESDC to administer programs. Per-person federal spending remained moderate, at ~$7,000 (inflation-adjusted, 2003).

• Evidence: The Romanow Commission highlighted underfunding in healthcare, prompting Chrétien’s increased transfers, which raised program costs without massive debt growth (balanced budgets post-1997).

• Outcome: Moderate cost increase for caregiving programs, balanced by fiscal restraint.

• Martin (2003–2006):

• Impact: The 2004 Health Accord committed $41.3 billion over 10 years, significantly raising federal health spending. Compassionate Care Benefits added EI program costs. Per-person spending rose to ~$8,000 (inflation-adjusted, 2005).

• Evidence: Martin’s “fix for a generation” increased Canada Health Transfer costs, with a 6% annual escalator driving long-term expenditure growth.

• Outcome: Substantial cost increase for health and caregiving, straining budgets but supported by surpluses.

• Trudeau (2015–2025):

• Impact: Trudeau’s tenure saw record-high spending, with per-person federal program spending reaching $17,091 in 2020/21, double the 2009 recession level. Caregiving initiatives (e.g., $2.4 billion for home care, $3 billion for long-term care, $90 million for Age Well at Home) contributed to this. Federal debt per person rose 35.3% (2015–2022), hitting $47,070 by 2022.

• Evidence: The Fraser Institute notes Trudeau’s six highest per-person spending years (2018–2023), with caregiving programs like the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit and National Caregiving Strategy adding costs. Debt interest costs reached $53.7 billion in 2024/25 ($1,301 per person). Public service personnel costs grew 32% (inflation-adjusted).

• Outcome: Massive cost increase, with caregiving programs driving higher spending, deficits, and debt.

Summary: Trudeau’s caregiving focus led to the highest cost increases, with significant debt accumulation. Martin’s health accords raised costs moderately, while Chrétien’s spending was constrained by fiscal discipline.

3. Scope of Authority of Government Institutions

• Chrétien (1993–2003):

• Impact: The 2000 Health Accord expanded federal authority in healthcare by tying transfers to provincial accountability, though provinces retained constitutional jurisdiction over health. The Live-In Caregiver Program extended federal oversight into immigration and labor for caregiving. Health Canada and ESDC gained roles in policy development and program delivery.

• Evidence: The Romanow Commission pushed for stronger federal leadership in healthcare, influencing Chrétien’s accords. Central agencies (e.g., Privy Council Office) supported policy coordination, reflecting a broader policy process under Chrétien’s pluralistic approach.

• Outcome: Moderate expansion of federal authority in health and caregiving, balanced by provincial pushback.

• Martin (2003–2006):

• Impact: The 2004 Health Accord deepened federal influence through increased transfers and conditions (e.g., wait-time reductions), strengthening Health Canada’s role. Compassionate Care Benefits expanded ESDC’s authority over EI-based caregiver support. Martin’s push for a more open policy process enhanced ministerial and departmental roles in caregiving policy.

• Evidence: Martin’s accord required provincial reporting, subtly expanding federal oversight. Central agencies like the Treasury Board facilitated funding approvals, reinforcing institutional authority.

• Outcome: Notable increase in federal authority, particularly in health and social benefits.

• Trudeau (2015–2025):

• Impact: Trudeau’s caregiving policies significantly expanded federal authority. The Canada Caregiver Credit and Recovery Caregiving Benefit centralized tax and EI program administration in ESDC and the Canada Revenue Agency. The National Caregiving Strategy (2025) proposed federal leadership in caregiver support, workforce planning, and workplace flexibility, potentially encroaching on provincial domains. Post-COVID long-term care standards pushed federal influence into provincial jurisdictions.

• Evidence: Budget 2024’s strategy consultations involved Health Canada, ESDC, and new bodies like the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence, expanding institutional roles. Public service growth supported this, with deputy ministers and officials managing complex programs. However, high spending and debt raised concerns about overreach, with critics arguing it weakened economic growth.

• Outcome: Significant expansion of federal authority, with caregiving policies driving centralization, though contested by provinces and fiscal critics.

Summary: Trudeau’s policies most expanded federal authority, with caregiving initiatives centralizing roles in health and social services. Martin’s accords increased federal influence, while Chrétien’s changes were more restrained.

Critical Analysis

• Trudeau’s Dominance: Trudeau’s tenure stands out due to the scale of caregiving investments and the National Caregiving Strategy, which explicitly framed caregiving as a federal priority. However, his record-high spending and debt (per-person debt up 35.3% from 2015–2022) raised concerns about sustainability, with the Fraser Institute arguing it burdened Canadians with $53.7 billion in annual debt interest by 2024/25.

• Chrétien and Martin’s Foundations: Chrétien’s health accords and Martin’s “fix for a generation” laid critical infrastructure for caregiving, but their focus was broader (healthcare vs. caregiving-specific). Their fiscal restraint (balanced budgets) contrasts with Trudeau’s deficit-driven approach.

• Institutional Impacts: The caregiving shift consistently grew Health Canada and ESDC, with Trudeau’s policies driving the largest bureaucratic and cost increases. Authority expanded most under Trudeau, but provincial resistance (health is provincial jurisdiction) and fiscal critiques highlight limits to federal overreach.

• Search Result Insights: The Fraser Institute’s data on spending and debt under Trudeau underscores the fiscal cost of caregiving expansion, while Martin’s pluralistic policy process () and public service growth () provide context for institutional changes. However, no source directly links caregiving to “to serve and protect,” suggesting the shift is interpretive rather than formal.

Conclusion

The shift toward a “national caregiver” role was most pronounced under Justin Trudeau (2015–2025), followed by Jean Chrétien (1993–2003) and Paul Martin (2003–2006), due to their health accords, caregiver benefits, and the 2025 National Caregiving Strategy. Effects on government institutions include:

• Size: Trudeau drove the largest public service growth (39% increase), particularly in Health Canada and ESDC, while Chrétien’s cuts limited expansion, and Martin saw modest growth.

• Cost: Trudeau’s record-high spending ($17,091 per person in 2020/21) and debt ($47,070 per person by 2022) far exceeded Chrétien’s and Martin’s more restrained increases.

• Scope of Authority: Trudeau’s policies most expanded federal roles in caregiving, followed by Martin’s health accords and Chrétien’s foundational transfers, though provincial jurisdiction constrained centralization.

Conservative or Liberal❓

The packed room was politically divided last night. Nearly everyone was a senior.

Jamie Schmale masterfully outlined the priorities of a Conservative majority government under Pierre Poilievre if elected. The platform is economically sound. It demonstrates a prudent and responsible balance between Canada’s fiscal, economic and social needs. With ten years experience as a federal MP, Jamie knows the inner workings of Parliament and understands the various federal institutions that serve Canadians. Jamie also knows the people and economic/cultural ‘landscape’ of Haliburton-Kawatha Lakes-Brock very well. He is a polished, articulate and concerned statesman for our riding and remains our best choice to carry on, especially if a Conservative government is formed.

Dr. Nell Thomas is a novice politician, and it showed last night. As a champion of the care-giving class, she shines. As someone who may face decisions that must balance fiscal responsibility with social causes taking into consideration the ability to pay without increasing taxes, bureaucracy and debt - she failed to convince me that she possesses this knowledge, political relationships, experience or wisdom to be anywhere near as effective as Jamie Schmale.

If a Conservative government is formed, Nell will find herself in the frustrating and ineffective role as an MP in the “official opposition”. Would she return to her practice as a family physician if this was to be her fate, or would she stick it out as Jamie has done under the last ten years of Liberal/NDP rule?

I personally wish that Dr. Thomas had a better understanding of Economics and the elements that Canadian businesses need to generate good private sector jobs in thriving businesses. She frequently deferred to and praised Marc Carney as a “great economist” which demonstrated how little faith she has in her own judgement and experience.

Then there’s this…

If Marc Carney has served as a former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, and a Budget adviser to Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau over the past 5 years, why are Canada and England facing a debt crisis?