Business
Federal government increased number of public service employees by more than 40%

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
“the size of the federal public service reached 274,219 employees in 2022/23—an increase of 40.4 per cent since 2014/15”
Over the last eight years the Trudeau government has expanded the size of the federal public service to ensure it plays a more active role in the Canadian economy. However, there’s little evidence that this bigger government has made Canadians better off.
According to the Public Service Commission of Canada, the size of the federal public service reached 274,219 employees in 2022/23—an increase of 40.4 per cent since 2014/15. And according to data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, total compensation for federal bureaucrats (adjusted for inflation) increased by nearly 37 per cent between 2015/16 and 2021/22.
This is occurring even as government workers in Canada already enjoy a substantial wage and benefit premium compared to comparable workers in the private sector. According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, in 2021 (the latest year of comparable data) government workers at all levels (federal, provincial and local) received wages that were 8.5 per cent higher, on average, than Canadians employed in the private sector. (The study controls for factors such as gender, age, education, tenure and industry to provide an “apples to apples” comparison among workers.)
But higher compensation and an increasing size of the federal public service have not provided better access to government programs and services or translated into tangible economic results for Canadians.
A recent poll found that only 16 per cent of Canadians believe they get good or great value from the services they receive from governments such as health care, education, police, roads and national defence. Nearly half (44 per cent) of Canadians believed they receive poor or very poor value from the services they receive.
Moreover, living standards have only improved marginally in Canada since 2015. Gross domestic product (GDP) per person—a broad measure of living standards—has grown by a meagre 5.1 per cent (inflation-adjusted) over the last eight years. By comparison, Americans have seen their living standards grow by nearly three times as much over the same timeframe.
To put this into further perspective, total compensation and employment for federal bureaucrats are increasing much faster than living standards for Canadians.
These results are not surprising. Bigger governments are not necessarily better than smaller ones. Empirical economic research suggests that economic growth is maximized when government spending ranges between 24 per cent and 32 per cent of the size of the national economy. When government spending exceeds this optimal range, government impedes both economic growth and improvements in living standards. Unfortunately, Canada’s size of government (federal, provincial and local) was far beyond the optimal level at 40.5 per cent of GDP in 2022.
Since 2015, the Trudeau government has added more administrators and managers to the federal public service and significantly increased spending—while failing to help raise the living standards of Canadians. Entrusting bureaucrats to pick winners and losers by subsidizing certain industries instead of others has not been a recipe for economic success. Instead, Ottawa appears to be competing with the private sector for skilled workers and inhibiting the national economy in the process.
Canada needs a leaner and more efficient federal government that focuses only on its core functions. Bigger government hasn’t been good for Canadians, it’s only been good for government workers.
Authors:
Business
Tariffs Get The Blame But It’s Non-Tariff Barriers That Kill Free Trade

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ian Madsen
From telecom ownership limits to convoluted regulations, these hidden obstacles drive up prices, choke innovation, and shield domestic industries from global competition. Canada ranks among the worst offenders. If Ottawa is serious about free trade, it’s time to tackle the red tape, not just the tariffs.
Governments claim to support free trade, but use hidden rules to shut out foreign competition
Tariffs levied by governments on imports are a well-known impediment to trade. They raise costs for consumers and businesses alike. But tariffs are no longer the main obstacle to the elusive goal of “free and fair trade.” A more significant—and often overlooked—threat comes from non-tariff barriers: the behind-the-scenes rules, subsidies and restrictions that quietly block competition from foreign exporters.
These barriers can take many forms, including import licences, quotas, discriminatory regulations and state subsidies. The result is often higher prices, limited product choices and reduced innovation, since foreign competitors are effectively shut out of the market before they can enter.
This hidden protectionism harms both consumers and Canadian firms that rely on imported goods or global supply chains.
To understand the global scope of these barriers, a recent analysis by the Tholos Foundation sheds light on their prevalence and impact. Its 2023 Non-Tariff Barriers Index Report examined the policies, laws and trade practices of 88 countries, representing 96 per cent of the world’s population and GDP.
The results are surprising: the United States, with some of the lowest official tariffs, ranked 65th on non-tariff barriers. Canada, by contrast, ranked fourth.
These barriers are often formalized and tracked under the term “non-tariff measures” by international organizations such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organization.
UNCTAD notes that while some serve legitimate non-trade objectives like public health or environmental protection, they still raise trade costs through procedural hurdles that can disproportionately affect small exporters or developing nations.
Other barriers include embargoes, import deposits, subsidies to favoured companies, state procurement preferences, technical standards designed to exclude foreign goods, restrictions on foreign investment, discriminatory taxes and forced technology transfers.
Many of these are detailed in a study by the Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
Sanctions and politically motivated trade restrictions also fall under this umbrella, complicating efforts to build reliable global trade networks.
Among the most opaque forms of trade distortion is currency manipulation. Countries like Japan have historically used ultra-low interest rates to stimulate growth, which also weakens their currencies.
Others may unintentionally devalue their currency through excessive, debt-financed spending. Regardless of motive, the effect is often the same: foreign goods become more expensive, and domestic exports become artificially competitive.
Canada is no stranger to non-tariff barriers. Labelling laws, technical standards and foreign ownership restrictions, particularly in telecommunications and digital media, are clear examples. Longstanding rules prevent foreign companies from owning Canadian telecom providers, limiting competition in an industry where Canadians already pay among the highest cellphone bills in the world. Similar restrictions on investment in broadcasting and interactive digital media also curtail innovation and investment.
Other nations use these barriers just as liberally. The U.S. has expanded its use of the “national security” exemption to justify restrictions in nearly any industry it sees as threatened. The European Union employs a wide range of non-tariff measures that affect sectors from agriculture to digital services. So while China is frequently criticized for abusing trade rules, it is far from the only offender.
If governments are serious about pursuing freer, fairer global trade, they must confront these less visible but more potent barriers. Tariffs may be declining, but protectionism is alive and well, just hidden behind layers of red tape.
For Canada to remain competitive and protect consumers, we must look beyond tariffs and scrutinize the subtler ways the federal government is restricting trade.
Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Business
US Grocery prices plunge as inflation hits four-year low

MxM News
Quick Hit:
Inflation dropped to its lowest level in over four years in April, marking the third straight month of better-than-expected consumer data. The White House says President Trump’s economic policies are driving a “Golden Age” of falling prices and rising wages for American workers.
Key Details:
-
Grocery prices fell by the largest margin in nearly five years, while egg prices plunged 12.7%—the steepest one-month drop since 1984.
-
Gas prices fell for a third consecutive month, contributing to broader declines in energy and transportation costs.
-
Real wages are up 1.9% year-over-year, with steady growth over the last three months giving workers more buying power.
JUST IN: April’s inflation report came in below expectations for the third straight month.
Grocery prices saw their largest decline in nearly five years.
Gas prices fell for the third month in a row. pic.twitter.com/AgsyV6efkF
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 13, 2025
Diving Deeper:
The Consumer Price Index report for April, released Tuesday, shows inflation easing to a four-year low—the strongest evidence yet that President Trump’s economic policies are reversing years of price pressure on American families.
“Inflation has fallen to the lowest level in more than four years as April’s Consumer Price Index smashes expectations for the third straight month in President Donald J. Trump’s Golden Age,” the White House said in a statement.
Prices for essentials saw some of the sharpest declines in years:
-
Grocery prices were down 0.4% in April, while egg prices dropped 12.7%, “the most since 1984,” Bloomberg reported.
-
Airfare, hotel rates, used vehicles, and energy costs all declined compared to a year ago.
-
Workers’ real wages rose for the third straight month, climbing 1.9% over the past year.
Mainstream media outlets that previously warned of Trump’s tariff-driven inflation are now acknowledging the downturn. Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo noted: “Oil is down, eggs are down, food is down. We’re seeing that reflected, so all that hysteria over tariffs is not showing up in these numbers.”
Investopedia’s Caleb Silver added, “The smoke was much worse than the fire… That drop in gasoline and energy prices—a big deal.”
NBC’s Brian Cheung said the report was “pretty solid,” and Bloomberg highlighted that “grocery prices were down 0.4% on the month… validating some of President Donald Trump’s messaging.”
The bottom line: prices are falling, paychecks are going further.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta Cabinet shuffle reflects new ministries. Adriana LaGrange in charge of “health care refocusing”
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Trump Reacts To James Comey’s ‘8647’ Post
-
Economy24 hours ago
The proof is in. Housing is more unaffordable than ever
-
Business2 days ago
Carney should commit to Chrétien-style review of Trudeau’s decade-long bureaucratic expansion
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Gain of Function Advocate Now Has Keys To Fauci’s Old Agency
-
Business1 day ago
US Grocery prices plunge as inflation hits four-year low
-
Red Deer2 days ago
Still Time To Win An Early Bird Prize – Congratulations To Our First Early Bird Winner!
-
Business2 days ago
Rise of Canadian Fentanyl ‘Superlabs’ Marks Shift in Chinese-Driven Global Drug Trade