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 countryā€™s finances and economy during a period of great uncertainty.

But while Freelandā€™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 ministersā€”Paul Martin (Liberal), Jim Flaherty (Conservative), Bill Morneau (Liberal) and Freeland (Liberal)ā€”itā€™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.

Letā€™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 ministerā€™s term. (Adjustments are made to reflect the effects of temporary recessions or unique aspects of each ministerā€™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 Morneauā€™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 increaseā€”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.

Letā€™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

Flahertyā€™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 Flahertyā€™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.

Freelandā€™s tenure as finance minister is the shortest of the four ministers examined. Itā€™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 Freelandā€™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 thereā€™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.

Freelandā€™s resignation from cabinet sent shock waves throughout the country, perhaps relieving her of responsibility for the Trudeau governmentā€™s latest poorly-designed fiscal policies. However, cabinet ministers bear responsibility for the performance of their ministriesā€”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, itā€™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

CDC stops $11 billion in COVID ā€™emergencyā€™ funding to health departments, NGOs

Published on

Fr0m LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has been providing massive funds in the name of COVID despite the fact that Joe Biden admitted the ā€˜pandemicā€™ was over by 2022.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is withdrawing $11.4 billion in COVID funding to state and local health departments, non-government groups, and international recipients about two years after the U.S. governmentĀ declaredĀ the COVID-19 ā€œnational emergencyā€ over.

ā€œThe COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago,ā€ HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon said in a statement, NBC NewsĀ reported.

ā€œHHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President Trumpā€™s mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again.ā€œ

Despite the fact that former President Joe Biden admitted in 2022 that the COVID ā€œpandemicā€ was over,Ā Health and Human Services (HHS) has been continuing to allocate funds for COVID testing, ā€œvaccines,ā€ and ā€œglobal COVID projects,ā€ according to CDC talking points.

The funding cut comes as millions of dollars for other initiatives, including vaccine hesitancy research and HIV prevention, are slashed under new HHSĀ Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

HHS has made the greatest funding cutbacks government-wide, according to the Department of Government Efficiencyā€™s website.

Dr. Robert MaloneĀ argued in 2023 that the only reason the Biden administration decided to end the national COVID ā€œemergencyā€ when it did is because of the congressional legislation seeking that end.

ā€œThe bottom line is that the imperial U.S. administrative state will never give up these unconstitutional powers until forced to do so,ā€ Malone wrote.

Continue Reading

Business

Publicity Kills DEI: A Free Speech Solution to Woke Companies

Published on

For years, major corporations bragged about their wonderful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Theyā€™re good for business and morally correct, they said. So why are they now cutting those programs?

Robby Starbuck says these programs once got a lot of buy-in, because people wanted to be nice! But DEI came to mean much more than just being nice.

Starbuck says what it looked like in practice was ā€œcrazy trainingsā€ and ā€œovertly racist hiring practices.” Now lots of people agree with him.

Companies actually take notice when Starbuck tells his many followers about their DEI programs. Often the programs get dropped.

Thatā€™s the power of free speech.

After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.

——————————————

Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.

Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABCā€™s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20. Stosselā€™s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.

Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club. Other honors include the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

To get our new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscribe

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Continue Reading

Trending

X