With growth flat and interest payments ballooning there’s no room for new spending unless deficits are cranked up again — a bad idea
In her economic update Tuesday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland just couldn’t help taking a swipe at Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre when she declared: “Canada is not and has never been broken.” In the early 1990s, Canada did come close to needing IMF assistance, but Liberal finance minister Paul Martin’s 1995 budget pulled us back from the abyss by cutting program spending 20 per cent and putting the country back on a path towards balanced budgets. We did receive short-term finance from the IMF during the currency crisis of 1962, but we have never reneged on public debt, unlike hapless Argentina, which has defaulted nine times since its independence in 1816.
Canada may not be broken but the federal government is all but broke and is clearly running out of steam. With a weak economy growing only a little faster than population, there is not a lot of spending room left, not unless deficits and debts are cranked up again. As it is, debt as share of GDP jumps from 41.7 per cent in fiscal year 2022/23 to 42.4 per cent in 2023/24. So much for the fiscal anchors we were promised.
After that, the finance minister predicts, debt as a share of GDP will fall ever so gently to 39 per cent over the following four years. I am quite skeptical about five-year forecasts, especially from a government that over eight years has failed to keep any deficit and debt promises. The 2015 election commitment to cap the deficit at $10 billion is long gone. So is the promise to keep the debt/GDP ratio from rising. Even before the pandemic, federal debt was creeping back up to over 30 per cent of GDP. After eye-popping spending during COVID, any plan to return to pre-pandemic levels has been ditched. Instead, we just accept debt at 40 per cent of GDP and move on. And if a recession hits, you can bet your bottom dollar — which may be the only dollar you have left — that federal debt/GDP will reach a new plateau, also never to be reversed.
As Albert Einstein once said, “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn’t … pays it.” With growing public debt charges, expenditures are rising 13.6 per cent over the next three years, faster than revenues, which are forecast to grow only 12.2 per cent. Much of this spending growth is due to interest payments that are rising by almost a half to $53 billion in 2025/26. That is a ton of money — many tons of money — that could have gone to health care, defence or even, yes, general tax cuts. Instead, we are filling the pockets of Canadian and foreign investors who find Canadian bonds very attractive at the interest rates they’re currently paying.
Small mercies: At least the Liberals feel obliged to say they will keep the lid on spending in the short term. Thus they forecast program spending rising by only 10.5 per cent over three years, with a program review expected to trim its growth by $15 billion. On the other hand, the forecast for deficits averages close to $40 billion a year for the next three years.
Economic updates used to be just that, reports on how things are going, but increasingly they are mini-budgets that introduce new measures. With the Liberals sinking in the polls, housing affordability is the focus. But with higher interest rates and more stringent climate and other regulations adding to construction costs, it is unclear how much more housing supply will grow even with the new measures. New spending over five years includes a $1-billion “affordable housing fund” and the previously announced $4.6 billion in GST relief on new rental construction. There’s also $15 billion in loans for apartment construction and $20 billion in low-cost, government-backed CMHC financing, neither of which adds to the deficit.
When money is scarce, of course, nanny-state regulations come into play, as well. A “mortgage charter” will guide banks on how to provide relief for distressed owners (even though banks already prefer to keep people in their homes rather than foreclose). Deductions incurred by operators of short-term rentals will be denied in those municipalities and provinces that prohibit such rentals. Temporary foreign workers in construction will get priority for permanent residence.
The housing plan wasn’t the only focus in the economic statement. To address affordability and climate change, the current government takes pride in its pyramid of budget-busting subsidies for clean energy and regulations dictating private-sector behaviour regarding such things as “junk fees” and grocery prices. There’s also GST relief for psychotherapists and more generous subsidies for journalists and news organizations. (I suppose I should bend a knee to the minister and doff my cap.)
What’s missing in the statement? It barely mentions the country’s poor productivity performance. And you will word-search in vain for “tax reform,” “general tax relief” or “deregulation” aimed at spurring private sector investment. No mention is made that accelerated tax depreciation for capital investment, introduced in 2018, is being phased out beginning January 1st, which will discourage private investment, including in housing construction. Instead, the Liberal economic plan is all about more government, not less, to grow the economy. Without the private sector, that’s not going to work.
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.
Canadian federal politicians are floundering in their responses to Donald Trump’s tariff and annexation threats. Unfortunately, they’re stuck in a 2016 mindset, still thinking Trump is a temporary aberration who should be disdained and ignored by the global community. But a lot has changed. Anyone wanting to understand Trump’s current priorities should spend less time looking at trade statistics and more time understanding the details of the lawfare campaigns against him. Canadian officials who had to look up who Kash Patel is, or who don’t know why Nathan Wade’s girlfriend finds herself in legal jeopardy, will find the next four years bewildering.
Three years ago, Trump was on the ropes. His first term had been derailed by phony accusations of Russian collusion and a Ukrainian quid pro quo. After 2020, the Biden Justice Department and numerous Democrat prosecutors devised implausible legal theories to launch multiple criminal cases against him and people who worked in his administration. In summer 2022, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago and leaked to the press rumours of stolen nuclear codes and theft of government secrets. After Trump announced his candidacy in 2022, he was hit by wave after wave of indictments and civil suits strategically filed in deep blue districts. His legal bills soared while his lawyers past and present battled well-funded disbarment campaigns aimed at making it impossible for him to obtain counsel. He was assessed hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties and faced life in prison if convicted.
This would have broken many men. But when he was mug-shotted in Georgia on Aug. 24, 2023, his scowl signalled he was not giving in. In the 11 months from that day to his fist pump in Butler, Pennsylvania, Trump managed to defeat and discredit the lawfare attacks, assemble and lead a highly effective campaign team, knock Joe Biden off the Democratic ticket, run a series of near daily (and sometimes twice daily) rallies, win over top business leaders in Silicon Valley, open up a commanding lead in the polls and not only survive an assassination attempt but turn it into an image of triumph. On election day, he won the popular vote and carried the White House and both Houses of Congress.
It’s Trump’s world now, and Canadians should understand two things about it. First, he feels no loyalty to domestic and multilateral institutions that have governed the world for the past half century. Most of them opposed him last time and many were actively weaponized against him. In his mind, and in the thinking of his supporters, he didn’t just defeat the Democrats, he defeated the Republican establishment, most of Washington including the intelligence agencies, the entire corporate media, the courts, woke corporations, the United Nations and its derivatives, universities and academic authorities, and any foreign governments in league with the World Economic Forum. And it isn’t paranoia; they all had some role in trying to bring him down. Gaining credibility with the new Trump team will require showing how you have also fought against at least some of these groups.
Second, Trump has earned the right to govern in his own style, including saying whatever he wants. He’s a negotiator who likes trash-talking, so get used to it and learn to decode his messages.
When Trump first threatened tariffs, he linked it to two demands: stop the fentanyl going into the United States from Canada and meet our NATO spending targets. We should have done both long ago. In response, Trudeau should have launched an immediate national action plan on military readiness, border security and crackdowns on fentanyl labs. His failure to do so invited escalation. Which, luckily, only consisted of taunts about annexation. Rather than getting whiny and defensive, the best response (in addition to dealing with the border and defence issues) would have been to troll back by saying that Canada would fight any attempt to bring our people under the jurisdiction of the corrupt U.S. Department of Justice, and we will never form a union with a country that refuses to require every state to mandate photo I.D. to vote and has so many election problems as a result.
As to Trump’s complaints about the U.S. trade deficit with Canada, this is a made-in-Washington problem. The U.S. currently imports $4 trillion in goods and services from the rest of the world but only sells $3 trillion back in exports. Trump looks at that and says we’re ripping them off. But that trillion-dollar difference shows up in the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts as the capital account balance. The rest of the world buys that much in U.S. financial instruments each year, including treasury bills that keep Washington functioning. The U.S. savings rate is not high enough to cover the federal government deficit and all the other domestic borrowing needs. So the Americans look to other countries to cover the difference. Canada’s persistent trade surplus with the U.S. ($108 billion in 2023) partly funds that need. Money that goes to buying financial instruments can’t be spent on goods and services.
So the other response to the annexation taunts should be to remind Trump that all the tariffs in the world won’t shrink the trade deficit as long as Congress needs to borrow so much money each year. Eliminate the budget deficit and the trade deficit will disappear, too. And then there will be less money in D.C. to fund lawfare and corruption. Win-win.
To state the obvious, president-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose an across-the-board 25 per cent tariff on Canadian exports to the United States has gotten the attention of Canadian policymakers who are considering ways to retaliate.
Reportedly, if Trump makes good on his tariff threat, the federal government may levy retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of American-made goods including orange juice, ceramic products such as sinks and toilets, and some steel products. And NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he wants Canada to block exports of critical minerals such as aluminum, lithium and potash to the United States, saying that if Trump “wants to pick a fight with Canada, we have to make sure it’s clear that it’s going to hurt Americans as well.”
Indeed, the ostensible goal of tariff retaliation is to inflict economic damage on producers and workers in key U.S. jurisdictions while minimizing harm to Canadian consumers of products imported from the U.S. The hope is that there will be sufficient political blowback from Canada’s retaliation that Republican members of Congress will eventually view Trump’s tariffs as an unacceptable risk to their re-election and pressure him to roll them back.
But while Canadians might feel good about tit-for-tat retaliation against Trump’s trade bullying and taunting, it might well make things worse for the Canadian economy. For example, even selective tariffs will increase the cost of living for Canadians as importers of tariffed U.S. goods pass the tax along to domestic consumers. Retaliatory tariffs might also harm productivity growth in Canada by encouraging increased domestic production of goods that are produced relatively inefficiently here at home compared to in the U.S. Make no mistake—once trade protections are put in place, the beneficiaries have a strong vested interest in having the protections maintained indefinitely. While Trump will be gone in four years, tariffs imposed by Ottawa to retaliate against his actions will likely remain in place for longer.
The U.S. president has substantial leeway under existing legislation to implement trade measures such as tariffs. While Trump has several legislative options to impose new tariffs against Canada and Mexico, he’ll likely use the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president power to regulate imports and impose duties in response to an emergency involving any unusual and extraordinary threat to national security, foreign policy or the economy. According to Trump’s rhetoric, the emergency is illegal immigration and drug traffic originating in Canada and Mexico.
However risible Trump’s emergency claim might be when applied to Canada, overturning any action under the IEEPA, or some other enabling legislation, would require a legal challenge. And in fact, because no president has yet used the IEEPA to impose tariffs, the legality of Trump’s actions remains in doubt. In this context, a group of governors sympathetic to Canada’s position (and their own political fortunes) might spearhead a legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs with encouragement and support from the Canadian government.
To be sure, any legal challenge would take time to work its way through the U.S. court system. But it will likely also take time for domestic opposition to Trump’s tariffs to gain sufficient political momentum to effect any change. Indeed, given the current composition of Congress, it’s far from clear that a Team Canada effort to rally broad anti-tariff support among U.S. politicians and business leaders would bear fruit while Trump is in office.
While direct retaliation might be emotionally satisfying to Canadians, it would likely do more economic harm than good. And while a legal challenge will not obviate the immediate economic harm Canada will suffer from Trump’s tariffs, it might help limit the ability of Trump (and any future president) to use trade policy for political leverage in our bilateral relationship. After all, there’s no guarantee that the next president will not be a Trump acolyte.
