Economy
Proclaiming your government ‘fiscally responsible’ does not make it so

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
The government planned to spend $478.6 billion in 2024/25 and run a deficit of $27.8 billion. Its latest forecast, however, shows a larger deficit of $38.4 billion despite revenues being $32.6 billion higher than anticipated.
The Trudeau government will table its next federal budget on April 16. Before and after budget day, Canadians should be wary of carefully crafted and overly positive government rhetoric, which may bear little resemblance to the actual state of Ottawa’s finances and the government’s fiscal track record.
For example, federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland recently said the government plans “to invest in Canadians… in a fiscally responsible way.” At first glance, these comments seem reasonable. But consider the Trudeau government’s record on spending, deficits and debt over the last nine years.
Since taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government has demonstrated a proclivity to spend and borrow at nearly every turn. From 2018 to 2022, the Trudeau government recorded the five highest levels of federal spending per person (excluding debt interest costs) in Canadian history (inflation-adjusted). Recent projections from the government suggest it will possess the eight highest levels of per-person spending by the end of its current term next fall.
This repeated preference to turn on the spending taps has resulted in nine consecutive budget deficits, with federal debt reaching $2.0 trillion at the end of March 2024. Rapid debt accumulation means each Canadian was responsible for paying $1,160 in federal debt interest costs in 2023/24 alone and the government will likely need to raise taxes in the future.
The government also plans to continue running larger deficits than it did before COVID and borrow nearly $500 billion more by 2028/29.
To make matters worse, we can’t put much stock in their fiscal plans, as spending and deficits are almost always higher than government forecasts. Two years ago, for example, the government planned to spend $478.6 billion in 2024/25 and run a deficit of $27.8 billion. Its latest forecast, however, shows a larger deficit of $38.4 billion despite revenues being $32.6 billion higher than anticipated. A failure to restrain spending means the government now expects total spending to be $521.8 billion in 2024/25.
None of this points to any semblance of fiscal responsibility.
Ontario’s Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy has made similar erroneous claims. When tabling that province’s budget last month, he said his fiscal plan, which includes a $9.8 billion deficit in 2024/25 and $59.7 billion in debt over three years, was a “prudent, responsible approach.”
Despite paying lip service to their strong stewardship of government finances, Minister Bethlenfalvy and Premier Doug Ford rarely waste an opportunity to increase spending and burden Ontarians with more debt. From 2017/18 to 2024/25, provincial revenues will have increased by a projected 36.5 per cent, yet the Ford government has more than wiped out these gains by increasing program spending by nearly 41.0 per cent over the same timeframe.
Moreover, Ontario’s per-person inflation-adjusted spending is higher now than it ever was during Kathleen Wynne’s tenure as premier. Due to the Ford government’s decision to post deficits in five of six years, in conjunction with significant spending on infrastructure, provincial debt has increased by close to $92.0 billion since 2017/18.
None of these facts point to a “prudent, responsible approach” to finances at Queen’s Park.
The current governments in both Toronto and Ottawa have remarkably poor track records with spending and debt. Proclaiming yourself to be fiscally responsible does not make it so. It’s time for finance ministers to stop playing word tricks and be honest about their own mismanagement.
Authors:
Business
Americans rallying behind Trump’s tariffs

The Trump administration’s new tariffs are working:
The European Union will delay tariffs on U.S. exports into the trading bloc in response to the imposition of tariffs on European aluminum and steal, a measure announced in February by the White House as a part of an overhaul of the U.S. trade policies.
Instead of taking effect March 12, these tariffs will not apply until “mid-April”, according to a European official interviewed by The Hill.
This is not the first time the EU has responded this way to U.S. tariff measures. It happened already last time Trump was in office. One of the reasons why Brussels is so accommodative is that the European Parliament emphasized negotiations already back in February. Furthermore, as Forbes notes,
The U.S. economy is the largest in the world, and many countries rely on American consumers to buy their goods. By import tariffs, the U.S. can pressure trading partners into more favorable deals and protect domestic industries from unfair competition.
More on unfair competition in a moment. First, it is important to note that Trump did not start this trade skirmish. Please note what IndustryWeek reported back in 2018:
Trump points to U.S. auto exports to Europe, saying they are taxed at a higher rate than European exports to the United States. Here, facts do offer Trump some support: U.S. autos face duties of 10% while European cars are subject to dugies of only 2.5% in the United States.
They also noted some nuances, e.g., that the United States applies a higher tariff on light trucks, presumably to defend the most profitable vehicles rolling out of U.S. based manufacturing plants. Nevertheless, the story that most media outlets do not tell is that Europe has a history of putting tariffs on U.S. exports to a greater extent than tariffs are applied in the opposite direction.
Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Facts notwithstanding, this trade war has caught media attention and is reaching ridiculous proportions. According to CNBC,
Auto stocks are digesting President Donald Trump’s annoncement that he would place 25% tariffs on “all cars that are not made in the United Sates,” as well as certain automobile parts. … Shares of the “Detroit Three” all fell.
They also explain that GM took a particularly hard beating, and that Ferrari is going to use the tariffs as a reason to raise prices by ten percent. This sounds dramatic, but keep in mind that stocks fly up and down with impressive amplitude; what was lost yesterday can come back with a bonus tomorrow. As for Ferrari, a ten-percent price hike is basically meaningless since these cars are often sold in highly customized, individual negotiations before they are even produced.
Despite the media hype, these tariffs will not last the year. One reason is the retaliatory nature in President Trump’s tariffs, which—again—has already caught the attention of the Europeans and brought them to the negotiation table. We can debate whether or not his tactics are the best in order to create more fair trade terms between the United States and our trading partners, but there is no question that Trump’s methods have caught the attention of the powers that be (which include Mexico and Canada).
There is another reason why I do not see this tariffs tit-for-tat continuing for much longer. The European economy is in bad shape, especially compared to the U.S. economy. With European corporations already signaling increased direct investment in the U.S. economy, Europe is holding the short end of this stick.
But the bad news for the Europeans does not stop there. They are at an intrinsic disadvantage going into a tariffs-based trade war. The EU has a “tariff” of sorts that we do not have, namely the value-added tax, VAT. Shiphub.co has a succinct summary of how the VAT affects trade:
When importing (into the European Union), VAT should be taken into account. … VAT is calculated based on the customs value (the good’s value and transport costs … ) plus the due duty amount.
The term “duty” here, of course, refers to trade tariffs. This means that when tariffs go up, the VAT surcharge goes up as well. Aside from creating a tax-on-tax problem, this also means that the inflationary effect from U.S. imports is significantly stronger than it is on EU imports to the United States—even when tariffs are equal.
If the U.S. government wanted to, they could include the tax-on-tax effect of the VAT when assessing the effective EU tariffs on imports from the United States. This would quickly expand the tit-for-tat tariff war, with Europe at an escalating disadvantage.
For these reasons, I do not see how this “trade war” will continue beyond the summer, but even that is a pessimistic outlook.
Before I close this tariff topic and declare it a weekend, let me also mention that the use of tariffs in trade war is neither a new nor an unusual tactic. Check out this little brochure from the Directorate-General for Trade under the European Commission’:
Trade defence instruments, such as anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties, are ways of protecting European production against international trade distortions.
What they refer to as “defence instruments” are primarily tariffs on imports. In a separate report the Directorate lists no fewer than 63 trade-war cases where the EU imposes tariffs to punish a country for unfair trade tactics.
Trade what, and what countries, you wonder? Sweet corn from Thailand, fused alumina from China, biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, malleable tube fittings from China and Thailand, epoxy resins from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand… and lots and lots of tableware from China.
Like most people, I would prefer a world without taxes and tariffs, and the closer we can get to zero on either of those, the better. But until we get there, we should take a deep breath in the face of the media hype and trust our president on this one.
Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
Trump Reportedly Shuts Off Flow Of Taxpayer Dollars Into World Trade Organization

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Thomas English
The Trump administration has reportedly suspended financial contributions to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as of Thursday.
The decision comes as part of a broader shift by President Donald Trump to distance the U.S. from international institutions perceived to undermine American sovereignty or misallocate taxpayer dollars. U.S. funding for both 2024 and 2025 has been halted, amounting to roughly 11% of the WTO’s annual operating budget, with the organization’s total 2024 budget amounting to roughly $232 million, according to Reuters.
“Why is it that China, for decades, and with a population much bigger than ours, is paying a tiny fraction of [dollars] to The World Health Organization, The United Nations and, worst of all, The World Trade Organization, where they are considered a so-called ‘developing country’ and are therefore given massive advantages over The United States, and everyone else?” Trump wrote in May 2020.
The president has long criticized the WTO for what he sees as judicial overreach and systemic bias against the U.S. in trade disputes. Trump previously paralyzed the organization’s top appeals body in 2019 by blocking judicial appointments, rendering the WTO’s core dispute resolution mechanism largely inoperative.
But a major sticking point continues to be China’s continued classification as a “developing country” at the WTO — a designation that entitles Beijing to a host of special trade and financial privileges. Despite being the world’s second-largest economy, China receives extended compliance timelines, reduced dues and billions in World Bank loans usually reserved for poorer nations.
The Wilson Center, an international affairs-oriented think tank, previously slammed the status as an outdated loophole benefitting an economic superpower at the expense of developed democracies. The Trump administration echoed this criticism behind closed doors during WTO budget meetings in early March, according to Reuters.
The U.S. is reportedly not withdrawing from the WTO outright, but the funding freeze is likely to trigger diplomatic and economic groaning. WTO rules allow for punitive measures against non-paying member states, though the body’s weakened legal apparatus may limit enforcement capacity.
Trump has already withdrawn from the World Health Organization, slashed funds to the United Nations and signaled a potential exit from other global bodies he deems “unfair” to U.S. interests.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta Institute urging Premier Smith to follow Saskatchewan and drop Industrial Carbon Tax
-
Addictions2 days ago
Should fentanyl dealers face manslaughter charges for fatal overdoses?
-
Also Interesting1 day ago
The bizarre story of Taro Tsujimoto
-
Alberta2 days ago
Albertans have contributed $53.6 billion to the retirement of Canadians in other provinces
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Chinese Gangs Dominate Canada: Why Will Voters Give Liberals Another Term?
-
Health1 day ago
RFK Jr. Drops Stunning Vaccine Announcement
-
Energy2 days ago
Energy, climate, and economics — A smarter path for Canada
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
Soaked, Angry, and Awake: What We Saw at Pierre Poilievre’s Surrey Rally