Business
Federal government increased number of public service employees by more than 40%

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
“the size of the federal public service reached 274,219 employees in 2022/23—an increase of 40.4 per cent since 2014/15”
Over the last eight years the Trudeau government has expanded the size of the federal public service to ensure it plays a more active role in the Canadian economy. However, there’s little evidence that this bigger government has made Canadians better off.
According to the Public Service Commission of Canada, the size of the federal public service reached 274,219 employees in 2022/23—an increase of 40.4 per cent since 2014/15. And according to data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, total compensation for federal bureaucrats (adjusted for inflation) increased by nearly 37 per cent between 2015/16 and 2021/22.
This is occurring even as government workers in Canada already enjoy a substantial wage and benefit premium compared to comparable workers in the private sector. According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, in 2021 (the latest year of comparable data) government workers at all levels (federal, provincial and local) received wages that were 8.5 per cent higher, on average, than Canadians employed in the private sector. (The study controls for factors such as gender, age, education, tenure and industry to provide an “apples to apples” comparison among workers.)
But higher compensation and an increasing size of the federal public service have not provided better access to government programs and services or translated into tangible economic results for Canadians.
A recent poll found that only 16 per cent of Canadians believe they get good or great value from the services they receive from governments such as health care, education, police, roads and national defence. Nearly half (44 per cent) of Canadians believed they receive poor or very poor value from the services they receive.
Moreover, living standards have only improved marginally in Canada since 2015. Gross domestic product (GDP) per person—a broad measure of living standards—has grown by a meagre 5.1 per cent (inflation-adjusted) over the last eight years. By comparison, Americans have seen their living standards grow by nearly three times as much over the same timeframe.
To put this into further perspective, total compensation and employment for federal bureaucrats are increasing much faster than living standards for Canadians.
These results are not surprising. Bigger governments are not necessarily better than smaller ones. Empirical economic research suggests that economic growth is maximized when government spending ranges between 24 per cent and 32 per cent of the size of the national economy. When government spending exceeds this optimal range, government impedes both economic growth and improvements in living standards. Unfortunately, Canada’s size of government (federal, provincial and local) was far beyond the optimal level at 40.5 per cent of GDP in 2022.
Since 2015, the Trudeau government has added more administrators and managers to the federal public service and significantly increased spending—while failing to help raise the living standards of Canadians. Entrusting bureaucrats to pick winners and losers by subsidizing certain industries instead of others has not been a recipe for economic success. Instead, Ottawa appears to be competing with the private sector for skilled workers and inhibiting the national economy in the process.
Canada needs a leaner and more efficient federal government that focuses only on its core functions. Bigger government hasn’t been good for Canadians, it’s only been good for government workers.
Authors:
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
Automotive
Trump warns U.S. automakers: Do not raise prices in response to tariffs

MxM News
Quick Hit:
Former President Donald Trump warned automakers not to raise car prices in response to newly imposed tariffs, arguing that the move would ultimately benefit the industry by strengthening American manufacturing. However, automakers are signaling that price increases may be unavoidable.
Key Details:
- Trump told auto executives on a recent call that his administration would look unfavorably on price hikes due to tariffs.
- A 25% tariff on imported vehicles and parts is set to take effect on April 2, likely driving up costs for U.S. automakers.
- Industry analysts predict vehicle prices could rise 11% to 12% in response, despite Trump’s insistence that tariffs will benefit American manufacturing.
Diving Deeper:
In a conference call with leading automakers earlier this month, former President Donald Trump issued a stern warning: do not use his new tariffs as an excuse to raise car prices. While Trump presented the tariffs as a boon for American manufacturing, industry leaders remain unconvinced, arguing that the financial burden will inevitably lead to higher costs for consumers.
Trump’s administration is pressing ahead with a 25% tariff on all imported vehicles and parts, set to take effect on April 2. The move is aimed at reshaping trade dynamics in the auto industry, encouraging domestic manufacturing, and reversing what Trump calls the damaging effects of President Joe Biden’s electric vehicle mandates. Despite this, automakers say that rising costs on foreign parts—which many depend on—will leave them little choice but to pass expenses onto consumers.
“You’re going to see prices going down, but going to go down specifically because they’re going to buy what we’re doing, incentivizing companies to—and even countries—companies to come into America,” Trump stated at a recent event, reinforcing his stance that the tariffs will ultimately lower costs in the long run.
However, industry insiders are pushing back, warning that a rapid shift to domestic production is unrealistic. “Tariffs, at any level, cannot be offset or absorbed,” said Ray Scott, CEO of Lear, a major automotive parts supplier. His concern reflects broader anxieties within the industry, as automakers calculate the financial strain of the tariffs. Analysts at Morgan Stanley estimate that vehicle prices could increase between 11% and 12% in the coming months as the new tariffs take effect.
Automakers have been bracing for the fallout. Detroit’s major manufacturers and industry suppliers have voiced their concerns, emphasizing that transitioning supply chains and manufacturing operations back to the U.S. will take years. Meanwhile, auto retailers have stocked up on inventory, temporarily shielding consumers from price hikes. But once that supply runs low—likely by May—the full impact of the tariffs could hit.
Within the Trump administration, inflation remains a pressing concern, though Trump himself rarely discusses it publicly. His economic team is aware of the potential for tariffs to drive up costs, yet the administration’s stance remains firm: automakers must adapt without raising prices. It remains unclear, however, what actions Trump might take should automakers defy his warning.
The auto industry isn’t alone in its concerns. Executives across multiple sectors, from oil and gas to food manufacturing, have been lobbying against major tariffs, arguing that they will inevitably result in higher prices for American consumers. While Trump has largely dismissed these warnings, some analysts suggest that public dissatisfaction with rising costs played a key role in shaping the outcome of the 2024 election.
With the tariffs set to take effect in just weeks, automakers are left grappling with a difficult reality: absorb billions in new costs or risk the ire of a White House determined to remake America’s trade policies.
-
Business2 days ago
Feds Spent Roughly $1 Billion To Conduct Survey That Could’ve Been Done For $10,000, Musk Says
-
Alberta1 day ago
Photo radar to be restricted to School, Playground, and Construction Zones as Alberta ends photo radar era
-
Health1 day ago
RFK Jr. Drops Stunning Vaccine Announcement
-
Alberta22 hours ago
Province announces plans for nine new ‘urgent care centres’ – redirecting 200,000 hospital visits
-
2025 Federal Election20 hours ago
Donald Trump suggests Mark Carney will win Canadian election, touts ‘productive call’ with leader
-
Business20 hours ago
Elon Musk, DOGE officials reveal ‘astonishing’ government waste, fraud in viral interview
-
Energy2 days ago
Energy, climate, and economics — A smarter path for Canada
-
Business2 days ago
Trump Reportedly Shuts Off Flow Of Taxpayer Dollars Into World Trade Organization