Business
Bureaucrats are wasting your money faster than you can say “bottoms up!”

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
By Franco Terrazzano
Bureaucrats in one federal department spent more than $3 million on wine, beer and spirits since 2019.
They’re spending an average of $51,000 a month on booze and sending you the bill.
We really need someone in Ottawa to cut the number of bureaucrats. I’d cheers to that.
All that and more in this week’s Taxpayer Waste Watch.
Franco.
Bottoms up: bureaucrats guzzle down your tax dollars
Working in government is a thirsty profession.
At least, it sure looks that way, seeing as a single federal department billed you for more than $3 million in alcoholic beverages since 2019.
That’s right, Global Affairs Canada ordered up at least $3,311,563 worth of wine, beer and spirits between Jan. 1, 2019, and May 3, 2024.
And then they sent you the bill.
Isn’t that nice?
Sure, you weren’t actually invited to any of their fancy wine tastings or cocktails parties, but you do get the privilege of picking up the drink tab.
All told, alcoholic drink orders from bureaucrats at Global Affairs Canada are costing you an average of $51,000 per month.
And keep in mind: that’s just ONE department.
According to the Government of Canada’s website, there are 213 departments and federal agencies.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation dug up the dirt on Global Affairs Canada’s boozy spending spree by filing an access-to-information request.
To add insult to injury, there’s good reason to suspect this $3.3 million doesn’t reflect the department’s total booze tab.
A Global Affairs Canada bureaucrat (presumably between sips from his rum and coke) told the CTF the department doesn’t track the total amount of your money it spends on alcohol.
So that $3.3 million figure represents their best guess.
In other words, these bureaucrats spent so much of your money on booze they can’t even keep track of it all.
It’s one thing to have a night where things get out of hand and memories are a little hazy. But when you have trouble nailing down five years’ worth of documents, you may have a problem.
At times, the records obtained by the CTF indicate the alcohol was ordered for a specific purpose – such as an official event or reception, or in one case, a $1,024 booze-filled “trivia night.”
But in many cases, the records provide no explanation for the booze orders beyond “bulk alcohol purchase” or “replenishment of wine stock.”
The largest single purchase came in February 2020, when bureaucrats “working” in Washington, D.C., expensed $56,684 in “wine purchases from the special store.”
Orders flown off to bureaucrats in far flung locales like Beijing, Oslo, Tokyo, Moscow and London routinely run into the thousands of dollars per shipment.
On March 19, 2019, bureaucrats in San Jose, California, ordered $8,153 worth of booze.
But apparently those bureaucrats didn’t get their fill…
Just 12 days later, Global Affairs Canada shipped another $2,196 worth of booze to San Jose.
Or take Reykjavik, Iceland, where bureaucrats ordered $8,074 worth of booze on Jan. 23, 2020, only to follow it up with another order for $2,849 less than two months later.
Does anyone remember the days when a $16 orange juice was enough to get a sitting cabinet minister to resign in disgrace?
Well good thing Global Affairs Canada wasn’t there, or it would’ve been a $68 screwdriver.
Business
Cuba has lost 24% of it’s population to emigration in the last 4 years

MxM News
Quick Hit:
A new study finds Cuba has lost nearly a quarter of its population since 2020, driven by economic collapse and a mass emigration wave unseen outside of war zones. The country’s population now stands at just over 8 million, down from nearly 10 million.
Key Details:
- Independent study estimates Cuba’s population at 8.02 million—down 24% in four years.
- Over 545,000 Cubans left the island in 2024 alone—double the official government figure.
- Demographer warns the crisis mirrors depopulation seen only in wartime, calling it a “systemic collapse.”
Diving Deeper:
Cuba is undergoing a staggering demographic collapse, losing nearly one in four residents over the past four years, according to a new study by economist and demographer Juan Carlos Albizu-Campos. The report estimates that by the end of 2024, Cuba’s population will stand at just over 8 million people—down from nearly 10 million—a 24% drop that Albizu-Campos says is comparable only to what is seen in war-torn nations.
The study, accessed by the Spanish news agency EFE, points to mass emigration as the primary driver. In 2024 alone, 545,011 Cubans are believed to have left the island. That number is more than double what the regime officially acknowledges, as Cuba’s government only counts those heading to the United States, ignoring large flows to destinations like Mexico, Spain, Serbia, and Uruguay.
Albizu-Campos describes the trend as “demographic emptying,” driven by what he calls a “quasi-permanent polycrisis” in Cuba—an interwoven web of political repression, economic freefall, and social decay. For years, Cubans have faced food and medicine shortages, blackout-plagued days, fuel scarcity, soaring inflation, and a broken currency system. The result has been not just migration, but a desperate stampede for the exits.
Yet, the regime continues to minimize the damage. Official figures from the National Office of Statistics and Information (ONEI) put Cuba’s population at just over 10 million in 2023. However, even those numbers acknowledge a shrinking population and the lowest birth rate in decades—confirming the crisis, if not its full scale.
Cuba hasn’t held a census since 2012. The last scheduled one in 2022 has been repeatedly delayed, allegedly due to lack of resources. Experts doubt that any new attempt will be transparent or complete.
Albizu-Campos warns that the government’s refusal to confront the reality of the collapse is obstructing any chance at solutions. More than just a demographic issue, the study describes Cuba’s situation as a “systemic crisis.”
“Havana (Cuba, February 2023)” by Bruno Rijsman licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED.
Business
Tariff-driven increase of U.S. manufacturing investment would face dearth of workers

From the Fraser Institute
Since 2015, the number of American manufacturing jobs has actually risen modestly. However, as a share of total U.S. employment, manufacturing has dropped from 30 per cent in the 1970s to around 8 per cent in 2024.
Donald Trump has long been convinced that the United States must revitalize its manufacturing sector, having—unwisely, in his view—allowed other countries to sell all manner of foreign-produced manufactured goods in the giant American market. As president, he’s moved quickly to shift the U.S. away from its previous embrace of liberal trade and open markets as cornerstones of its approach to international economic policy —wielding tariffs as his key policy instrument. Since taking office barely two months ago, President Trump has implemented a series of tariff hikes aimed at China and foreign producers of steel and aluminum—important categories of traded manufactured goods—and threatened to impose steep tariffs on most U.S. imports from Canada, Mexico and the European Union. In addition, he’s pledged to levy separate tariffs on imports of automobiles, semi-conductors, lumber, and pharmaceuticals, among other manufactured goods.
In the third week of March, the White House issued a flurry of news releases touting the administration’s commitment to “position the U.S. as a global superpower in manufacturing” and listing substantial new investments planned by multinational enterprises involved in manufacturing. Some of these appear to contemplate relocating manufacturing production in other jurisdictions to the U.S., while others promise new “greenfield” investments in a variety of manufacturing industries.
President Trump’s intense focus on manufacturing is shared by a large slice of America’s political class, spanning both of the main political parties. Yet American manufacturing has hardly withered away in the last few decades. The value of U.S. manufacturing “output” has continued to climb, reaching almost $3 trillion last year (equal to 10 per cent of total GDP). The U.S. still accounts for 15 per cent of global manufacturing production, measured in value-added terms. In fact, among the 10 largest manufacturing countries, it ranks second in manufacturing value-added on a per-capita basis. True, China has become the world’s biggest manufacturing country, representing about 30 per cent of global output. And the heavy reliance of Western economies on China in some segments of manufacturing does give rise to legitimate national security concerns. But the bulk of international trade in manufactured products does not involve goods or technologies that are particularly critical to national security, even if President Trump claims otherwise. Moreover, in the case of the U.S., a majority of two-way trade in manufacturing still takes place with other advanced Western economies (and Mexico).
In the U.S. political arena, much of the debate over manufacturing centres on jobs. And there’s no doubt that employment in the sector has fallen markedly over time, particularly from the early 1990s to the mid-2010s (see table below). Since 2015, the number of American manufacturing jobs has actually risen modestly. However, as a share of total U.S. employment, manufacturing has dropped from 30 per cent in the 1970s to around 8 per cent in 2024.
U.S. Manufacturing Employment, Select Years (000)* | |
---|---|
1990 | 17,395 |
2005 | 14,189 |
2010 | 14,444 |
2015 | 12,333 |
2022 | 12,889 |
2024 | 12,760 |
*December for each year shown. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics |
Economists who have studied the trend conclude that the main factors behind the decline of manufacturing employment include continuous automation, significant gains in productivity across much of the sector, and shifts in aggregate demand and consumption away from goods and toward services. Trade policy has also played a part, notably China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 and the subsequent dramatic expansion of its role in global manufacturing supply chains.
Contrary to what President Trump suggests, manufacturing’s shrinking place in the overall economy is not a uniquely American phenomenon. As Harvard economist Robert Lawrence recently observed “the employment share of manufacturing is declining in mature economies regardless of their overall industrial policy approaches. The trend is apparent both in economies that have adopted free-market policies… and in those with interventionist policies… All of the evidence points to deep and powerful forces that drive the long-term decline in manufacturing’s share of jobs and GDP as countries become richer.”
This brings us back to the president’s seeming determination to rapidly ramp up manufacturing investment and production as a core element of his “America First” program. An important issue overlooked by the administration is where to find the workers to staff a resurgent U.S. manufacturing sector. For while manufacturing has become a notably “capital-intensive” part of the U.S. economy, workers are still needed. And today, it’s hard to see where they will be found. This is especially true given the Trump administration’s well-advertised skepticism about the benefits of immigration.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current unemployment rate across America’s manufacturing industries collectively stands at a record low 2.9 per cent, well below the economy-wide rate of 4.5 per cent. In a recent survey by the National Association of Manufacturers, almost 70 per cent of American manufacturers cited the inability to attract and retain qualified employees as the number one barrier to business growth. A cursory look at the leading industry trade journals confirms that skill and talent shortages remain persistent in many parts of U.S. manufacturing—and that shortages are destined to get worse amid the expected significant jump in manufacturing investment being sought by the Trump administration.
As often seems to be the case with Trump’s stated policy objectives, the math surrounding his manufacturing agenda doesn’t add up. Manufacturing in America is in far better shape than the president acknowledges. And a tariff-driven avalanche of manufacturing investment—should one occur—will soon find the sector reeling from an unprecedented human resource crisis.
Jock Finlayson
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institut
-
Business1 day ago
28 energy leaders call for eliminating ALL energy subsidies—even ones they benefit from
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Carney’s Cap on Alberta Energy Costing Canada Billions
-
Business1 day ago
Trump Tariffs are not going away. Canada needs to adapt or face the consequences
-
Economy22 hours ago
Support For National Pipelines And LNG Projects Gain Momentum, Even In Quebec
-
Health1 day ago
Dr. Pierre Kory Exposes the Truth About the Texas ‘Measles Death’ Hoax
-
Economy23 hours ago
Solar and Wind Power Are Expensive
-
Business24 hours ago
Why a domestic economy upgrade trumps diversification
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
From Heel To Hero: George Foreman’s Uniquely American Story