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 its fall economic update has thrown an already badly underperforming government into crisis. In her letter of resignation, Freeland criticized the government, and indirectly the prime minister, for “costly political gimmicks” and irresponsible handling of the country’s finances and economy during a period of great uncertainty.

But while Freeland’s criticism of recent poorly-designed 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-person gross domestic product (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 a looming fiscal crisis brought about by decades of deficits and debt accumulation, he reduced spending 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 a 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. Debt 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 of economic growth or better 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 from $1.68 trillion when Freeland took over to an estimated $2.2 trillion 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 some 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 of $53.7 billion 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.

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Milagros Palacios

Director, Addington Centre for Measurement, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Conservatives remain skeptical about attempts to oust the current government in early 2025.

New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jagmeet Singh says he will bring forth a motion to topple Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government after the new year.

In a Friday statement on social media, Singh wrote, “No matter who is leading the Liberal Party, this government’s time is up.”

“We will put forward a clear motion of non-confidence in the next sitting of the House of Commons.”

Singh argued that the Trudeau Liberals “don’t deserve another chance” in governing Canada and that “Canadians can come together and build a country where we take better care of each other.”

“A country where we create good jobs. Stand up to the threats of Trump’s tariffs,” he said, adding, “and where everyone has a chance to succeed. I will be working hard to build a movement that can win in the next election.”

Singh’s sudden promise to topple to Trudeau government comes after now-former Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland resigned suddenly earlier this week. Her resignation sent shockwaves through Ottawa’s inner political circles and increased calls from all parties, Liberals included, for Trudeau to step down.

Freeland resigned after Trudeau asked her to step down as finance minister and move into a different position.

Her public resignation letter blasted Trudeau’s economic direction and apparent lack of willingness to work as a team player with the nation’s premiers.

MPs will not return to parliament until January 27, meaning a vote of non-confidence, which already has the support of the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois, could happen any time after that date.

It should be noted Singh’s NDP had in place a confidence agreement with the Liberals that was discarded in September. However, that did not stop the party from propping up Trudeau.

Speculation has been that Singh is waiting until the end of February to pull the full support of Trudeau so that he can qualify for this government MP pension. Since 2021, when the Liberals won a minority government, Singh’s NDP has voted confidence in Trudeau 286 times.

Conservative leader calls for emergency recall of Parliament to force confidence vote

Reaction to Singh’s promise to topple the Liberals was met with tepid response from political pundits, MPs, and others.

“Will believe it when I see it,” Alberta political commentator Cory Morgan wrote.

Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leader Pierre Poilievre was not buying Singh’s sudden reversal of support for Trudeau, noting he won’t do so until he gets his pension.

“Now that Parliament is closed and there is no chance to introduce any motion for months — until after you get your pension. You did the same stunt in September, claiming you’d no longer prop Trudeau up,” Poilievre wrote on X.

“Then you went back on your word and voted 8 times AGAINST AN ELECTION & for your boss Trudeau. Just 11 days ago you voted against a non-confidence motion filled with your own words. Had you voted the other way, we’d be almost half-way through the election now. Only common sense Conservatives can and will replace this costly NDP-Liberal clown show.”

He also asked the Governor General to “urgently reconvene parliament” and require a “non-confidence vote.”

Canadian freedom lawyer Eva Chipiuk observed on X that the NDP has “kept this government in power well past its best before date, now they want to be congratulated for solving the problem they created in the first place.”

“I hope people see through your hypocrisy and get engaged so we can be rid of useless and self interest elected officials once and for all,” she added.

The most recent polls show a Conservative government under Poilievre would win a super majority were an election held today.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Liberals were hoping to delay the 2025 federal election by a few days in what many see as a stunt to secure pensions for MPs who are projected to lose their seats. Approximately 80 MPs would qualify for pensions should they sit as MPs until at least October 27, 2025, which is the newly proposed election date. The date as it stands now is set for October 20.