Connect with us

Business

Comparing four federal finance ministers in moments of crisis

Published

9 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Grady Munro, Milagros Palacios and Jason Clemens

The sudden resignation of federal finance minister (and deputy prime minister) Chrystia Freeland, hours before the government was scheduled to release itsĀ fall economic updateĀ has thrown an already badly underperforming government into crisis. In her letter ofĀ resignation, Freeland criticized the government, and indirectly the prime minister, for ā€œcostly political gimmicksā€ and irresponsible handling of the country’s finances and economy during a period of great uncertainty.

But while Freeland’s criticism of recentĀ poorly-designedĀ federal policies is valid, her resignation, in some ways, tries to reshape her history into that of a more responsible finance minister. That is, however, ultimately an empirical question. If we contrast the performance of the last four long-serving (more than three years) federal finance ministers—Paul Martin (Liberal), Jim Flaherty (Conservative), Bill Morneau (Liberal) and Freeland (Liberal)—it’s clear that neither Freeland nor her predecessor (Morneau) were successful finance ministers in terms of imposing fiscal discipline or overseeing a strong Canadian economy.

Let’s first consider the most basic measure of economic performance, growth in per-personĀ gross domestic productĀ (GDP), adjusted for inflation. This is a broad measure of living standards that gauges the value of all goods and services produced in the economy adjusted for the population and inflation. The chart below shows the average annual growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP over the course of each finance minister’s term. (Adjustments are made to reflect the effects of temporary recessions or unique aspects of each minister’s tenure to make it easier to compare the performances of each finance minister.)

Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0222-01; 2024 Fall Economic Statement

By far Paul Martin oversaw the strongest growth in per-person GDP, with an average annual increase of 2.4 per cent. Over his entire tenure spanning a decade, living standards rose more than 25 per cent.

The average annual increase in per-person GDP under Flaherty was 0.6 per cent, although that includes the financial recession of 2008-09. If we adjust the data for the recession, average annual growth in per-person GDP was 1.4 per cent, still below Martin but more than double the rate if the effects of the recession are included.

During Bill Morneau’s term, average annual growth in per-person GDP was -0.5 per cent, although this includes the effects of the COVID recession. If we adjust to exclude 2020, Morneau averaged a 0.7 per cent annual increase—half the adjusted average annual growth rate under Flaherty.

Finally, Chrystia Freeland averaged annual growth in per-person GDP of -0.3 per cent during her tenure. And while the first 18 or so months of her time as finance minister, from the summer of 2020 through 2021, were affected by the COVID recession and the subsequent rebound, the average annual rate of per-person GDP growth was -0.2 per cent during her final three years. Consequently, at the time of her resignation from cabinet in 2024, Canadian living standards are projected to be 1.8 per cent lower than they were in 2019.

Let’s now consider some basic fiscal measures.

Martin is by far the strongest performing finance minister across almost every metric. Faced with aĀ loomingĀ fiscal crisis brought about by decades of deficits and debt accumulation, he reducedĀ spendingĀ both in nominal terms and as a share of the economy. For example, after adjusting for inflation, per-person spending on federal programs dropped by 5.9 per cent during his tenure as finance minister (see chart below). As aĀ result, the federal government balanced the budget and lowered the national debt, ultimately freeing up resources via lower interest costs for personal and business tax relief that made the country more competitive and improved incentives for entrepreneurs, businessowners, investors and workers.

*Note: Freeland’s term began in 2020, but given the influence of COVID, 2019 is utilized as the baseline for the overall change in spending. Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0130-01; Fiscal Reference Tables 2024; 2024 Fall Economic Statement

Flaherty’s record as finance minister is mixed, in part due to the recession of 2008-09. Per-person program spending (inflation adjusted) increased by 11.6 per cent, and there was a slight (0.6 percentage point) increase in spending as a share of the economy.Ā DebtĀ also increased as a share of the economy, although again, much of the borrowing during Flaherty’s tenure was linked with the 2008-09 recession. Flaherty did implement tax relief, including extending the business income tax cuts started under Martin, which made Canada more competitive in attracting investment and fostering entrepreneurship.

Both Morneau and Freeland recorded much worse financial performances than Flaherty and Martin. Morneau increased per-person spending on programs (inflation adjusted) by 37.1 per cent after removing 2020 COVID-related expenditures. Even if a more generous assessment is used, specifically comparing spending in 2019 (prior to the effects of the pandemic and recession) per-person spending still increased by 18.1 per cent compared to the beginning of his tenure.

In his five years, Morneau oversaw an increase in total federal debt of more than $575 billion, some of which was linked with COVID spending in 2020. However, as multiple analyses have concluded, the Trudeau government spent more and accumulated more debt during COVID than most comparable industrialized countries, with little or nothing to show for it in terms ofĀ economic growthĀ or betterĀ health performance. Simply put, had Morneau exercised more restraint, Canada would have accumulated less debt and likely performed better economically.

Freeland’s tenure as finance minister is the shortest of the four ministers examined. It’s nonetheless equally as unimpressive as that of her Trudeau government predecessor (Morneau). If we use baseline spending from 2019 to adjust for the spike in spending in 2020 when she was appointed finance minister, per-person spending on programs by the federal government (inflation adjusted) during Freeland’s term increased by 4.1 per cent. Total federal debt is expected to increase fromĀ $1.68 trillionĀ when Freeland took over to an estimatedĀ $2.2 trillionĀ this year, despite the absence of a recession or any other event that would impair federal finances since the end of COVID in 2021. For someĀ perspective, the $470.8 billion in debt accumulated under Freeland is more than double the $220.3 billion accumulated under Morneau prior to COVID. And there’s an immediate cost to that debt in the form ofĀ $53.7 billionĀ in expected federal debt interest costs this year. These are taxpayer resources unavailable for actual services such as health care.

Freeland’s resignation from cabinet sent shock waves throughout the country, perhaps relieving her of responsibility for the Trudeau government’s latest poorly-designed fiscal policies. However, cabinet ministers bear responsibility for the performance of their ministries—meaning Freeland must be held accountable for her previous budgets and the fiscal and economic performance of the government during her tenure. Compared to previous long-serving finances ministers, it’s clear that Chrystia Freeland, and her Trudeau predecessor Bill Morneau, failed to shepherd a strong economy or maintain responsible and prudent finances.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trump confirms 35% tariff on Canada, warns more could come

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump on Thursday confirmed a sweeping new 35% tariff on Canadian imports starting August 1, citing Canada’s failure to curb fentanyl trafficking and retaliatory trade actions.

Key Details:

  • In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said the new 35% levy is in response to Canada’s ā€œfinancial retaliationā€ and its inability to stop fentanyl from reaching the U.S.
  • Trump emphasized that Canadian businesses that relocate manufacturing to the U.S. will be exempt and promised expedited approvals for such moves.
  • The administration has already notified 23 countries of impending tariffs following the expiration of a 90-day negotiation window under Trump’s ā€œLiberation Dayā€ trade policy.

Diving Deeper:

President Trump escalated his tariff strategy on Thursday, formally announcing a 35% duty on all Canadian imports effective August 1. The move follows what Trump described as a breakdown in trade cooperation and a failure by Canada to address its role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis.

ā€œIt is a Great Honor for me to send you this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationship,ā€ Trump wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney. He added that the tariff response comes after Canada “financially retaliated” against the U.S. rather than working to resolve the flow of fentanyl across the northern border.

Trump’sĀ letterĀ made clear the tariff will apply broadly, separate from any existing sector-specific levies, and included a warning that ā€œgoods transshipped to evade this higher Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.ā€ The president also hinted that further retaliation from Canada could push rates even higher.

However, Trump left the door open for possible revisions. ā€œIf Canada works with me to stop the flow of Fentanyl, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter,ā€ he said, adding that tariffs ā€œmay be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship.ā€

Canadian companies that move operations to the U.S. would be exempt, Trump said, noting his administration ā€œwill do everything possible to get approvals quickly, professionally, and routinely — In other words, in a matter of weeks.ā€

The U.S. traded over $762 billion in goods with Canada in 2024, with a trade deficit of $63.3 billion, a figure Trump called a ā€œmajor threatā€ to both the economy and national security.

Speaking with NBC News on Thursday, Trump suggested evenĀ broaderĀ tariff hikes are coming, floating the idea of a 15% or 20% blanket rate on all imports. ā€œWe’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay,ā€ he told Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker, adding that ā€œthe tariffs have been very well-receivedā€ and noting that the stock market had hit new highs that day.

The Canadian announcement is part of a broader global tariff rollout. In recent days, Trump has notified at least 23 countries of new levies and revealed a separate 50% tariff on copper imports.

ā€œNot everybody has to get a letter,ā€ Trump said when asked if other leaders would be formally notified. ā€œYou know that. We’re just setting our tariffs.ā€

Continue Reading

Business

Trump slaps Brazil with tariffs over social media censorship

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Dan Frieth

In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz InƔcio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.

U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a fierce rebuke of Brazil’s moves to silence American-run social media platforms, particularly Rumble and X.

In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz InƔcio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.

He calls attention to ā€œSECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms,ā€ pointing out that Brazil’s Supreme Court has been ā€œthreatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market.ā€

A formal letter dated July 9, 2025, from The White House addressed to His Excellency Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, discussing opposition to the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro and announcing a 50% tariff on Brazilian products entering the United States due to alleged unfair trade practices and censorship issues, with a note on efforts to ease trade restrictions if Brazil changes certain policies.

A typed letter from Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, discussing tariffs related to Brazil, digital trade issues, and a Section 301 investigation, signed with his signature.

Trump warns that these actions are ā€œdue in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans,ā€ and states: ā€œstarting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.ā€ He also adds that ā€œGoods transshipped to evade this 50% Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.ā€

Brazil’s crackdown has targeted Rumble after it refused to comply with orders to block the account of Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian streamer living in the United States.

On February 21, 2025,Ā Justice Alexandre de MoraesĀ ordered Rumble’sĀ suspensionĀ for non‑compliance, saying it failed ā€œto comply with court orders.ā€

Earlier, from August to October 2024, Moraes had similarly orderedĀ a nationwide block on X.

The court directed ISPs to suspend access and imposed fines after the platform refused to designate a legal representative and remove certain accounts.

Elon Musk responded: ā€œFree speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo‑judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.ā€

By linking censorship actions, particularly those targeting Rumble and X, to U.S. trade policy, Trump’s letter asserts that Brazil’s judiciary has moved into the arena of foreign policy and economic consequences.

The tariffs, he makes clear, are meant, at least in part, as a response to Brazil’s suppression of American free speech.

Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Brazil for censoring American platforms may also serve as a clear signal to the European Union, which is advancing similar regulatory efforts under the guise of ā€œdisinformationā€ and ā€œonline safety.ā€

With the EU’sĀ Digital Services ActĀ and proposedĀ ā€œhate speechā€ legislationĀ expanding government authority over content moderation, American companies face mounting pressure to comply with vague and sweeping takedown demands.

By framing censorship as a violation of U.S. free speech rights and linking it to trade consequences, Trump is effectively warning that any foreign attempt to suppress American voices or platforms could trigger similar economic retaliation.

Reprinted with permission fromĀ Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Trending

X