Business
The Problem With Trudeau’s Fiscal Responsibility Message

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
By Franco Terrazzano
This year’s interest charges will cost taxpayers more than $46 billion. That’s almost $4 billion every month that’s not going to improve services or lower taxes. It’s also a cost of more than $1,000 for every Canadian.
There’s only one problem with the federal government’s messaging about saving money: the feds aren’t actually saving money.
“The foundation of our Fall Economic Statement is our responsible fiscal plan,” said Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.
The mid-year budget update shows the government increasing spending by $15 billion this year. A far cry from Freeland’s March promise to find “savings of $15.4 billion over the next five years.”
Next year, the government will increase spending by $30 billion. And that comes on top of an already ballooned baseline.
The feds spent all-time highs before the pandemic. That means Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was spending more before the pandemic than the feds did during any single year during World War II, even after accounting for inflation and population growth.
Freeland is trying to put Canadians’ minds at ease by claiming her deficits are “modest.” Canadians have heard this before.
When running for prime minister in 2015, Trudeau promised to run a few “modest” deficits of less than $10 billion before balancing the budget in 2019. Trudeau blew that balanced budget promise by a “modest” $20 billion.
This year’s deficit is projected to hit $40 billion. Deficits in 2024 and 2025 are both projected to be $38 billion.
Is this the new modest? Four times larger than the “modest” deficits Trudeau first promised?
The mid-year budget update proves this government has no idea how to balance a budget.
In fact, the only mention of a balanced budget in Ottawa comes from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who forecasts the next balanced budget will happen in 2035. But that relies on the economy growing every year, relatively low interest rates and no new spending.
A government too incompetent to balance the budget means Canadians are paying dearly just to service the debt.
This year’s interest charges will cost taxpayers more than $46 billion. That’s almost $4 billion every month that’s not going to improve services or lower taxes. It’s also a cost of more than $1,000 for every Canadian.
Next year, debt interest charges will surpass federal health transfers to the provinces. Soon, every penny collected from the GST will go toward servicing the debt.
As bad as the budget is, the government could keep the ship from sinking with modest spending restraint.
The government could balance the budget next year by using its own projected program spending from two budget updates ago. Instead of running a $38-billion deficit next year, taxpayers would have a $1-billion surplus if Freeland just stuck to the spending plan she created in 2021.
This highlights the root of Trudeau’s spending problem – the ratchet effect. Almost every budget document released by this government drastically increases spending.
The mid-year budget update in 2019 first projected spending in 2024 to be $421 billion. This year’s budget update shows the government will spend $519 billion in 2024.
This government’s muscle for fiscal responsibility has atrophied.
MPs from all political parties can’t help themselves from taking a pay raise every year – regardless of the struggles their constituents endure. The prime minister can’t help but spend $61,000 on Manhattan hotel rooms during a two-day anti-poverty summit.
No one in government is willing to end the hundreds of millions in bureaucratic bonuses, despite departments consistently meeting less than half of their own performance targets.
The Liberals are also unwilling to take the air out of the ballooning bureaucracy, which increased by 98,000 employees since they took power. That’s almost 40 per cent more federal employees. The bureaucracy currently consumes half of every tax dollar used in day-to-day spending.
No party in the House of Commons is willing to oppose the more than $43 billion taxpayers are being forced to give multinational corporations to build battery plants.
This government hasn’t shown one iota of fiscal restraint. In fact, the government appears to be trying its best to run up the red ink. Fortunately for taxpayers, it would only take modest spending restraint for a serious government to bring the books back into black.
Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Agriculture
Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

This article supplied by Troy Media.
A fourth Liberal term means higher carbon taxes and trade risks. Could Canada’s farmers and food security be on the line?
The Liberal Party, now led by Mark Carney, has secured a fourth consecutive term, albeit once again with a minority mandate. This time, however, the Liberals have a stronger hand, as they can rely not only on the NDP but also the Bloc Québécois to maintain power.
This broader base of parliamentary support could provide much-needed political stability at a crucial time, particularly as Canada prepares for a new round of trade negotiations with the United States and Mexico.
For the agri-food sector, the implications are significant. From carbon taxes to trade rules, federal decisions play a decisive role in shaping the costs and risks Canadian farmers face.
First and foremost, carbon pricing will remain a central issue. Carney has made it clear that the industrial carbon tax will stay—a policy that continues to erode the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food sector, where fuel, fertilizer and transportation costs are especially sensitive to carbon pricing. The tax, currently set at $95 per metric tonne, is scheduled to climb to $170 by 2030.
While consumers may not see this tax directly, businesses certainly do. More concerning is the Liberals’ intention to introduce a border carbon adjustment for imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing regimes. While this could theoretically protect Canadian industry, it also risks making food even more expensive for Canadian consumers, particularly if the U.S., our largest trading partner, remains uninterested in adopting similar carbon measures. Acting alone risks undermining both our food security and our global competitiveness.
Another looming issue is supply management. Although all parties pledged during the campaign not to alter Canada’s system for dairy, poultry and eggs, this framework—built on quotas and high import tariffs—is increasingly outdated. It is almost certain to come under pressure during trade negotiations. The American dairy lobby, in particular, will continue to demand greater access to Canadian markets. The Liberals have a chance to chart a more forward-looking path. Modernizing supply management could lead to a more competitive, resilient industry while providing consumers with greater choice and better prices.
The previous Parliament’s passage of Bill C-282, which sought to shield supply managed sectors from all future trade negotiations, was a deeply flawed move.
Fortunately, the new parliamentary makeup should make it far less likely that such protectionist legislation will survive. A more pragmatic approach to trade policy appears possible.
On the domestic front, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The Liberals have promised to eliminate remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade and to improve labour mobility, longstanding obstacles to the efficient movement of agri-food products across Canada. For example, differing provincial rules often prevent products like cheese, meat or wine from being sold freely across provinces, frustrating farmers and limiting consumer choice. Momentum was building before the election, and it must continue if we are serious about building a stronger domestic food economy.
Infrastructure investment is another bright spot. The Liberals pledged more than $5 billion through a Trade Diversification Corridor Fund to upgrade Canada’s severely undercapitalized export infrastructure. Strategic investment in trade gateways is overdue and critical for agri-food exporters looking to reduce reliance on the United States and expand into global markets.
Finally, the Liberal platform was alone in explicitly committing to support food processing in Canada, a crucial pillar of domestic food security. An increased focus on manufacturing will not only create jobs but also reduce reliance on imported food products, making Canada more resilient in the face of global disruptions.
Farmers have long felt sidelined by urban-centric Liberal governments. The past four years were marked by regulatory and trade clashes that deepened that divide. The hope now is that with greater political stability and a clearer focus on competitiveness, the next four years will bring a more constructive relationship between Ottawa and Canada’s agri-food sector.
If the Liberals are serious about food security and economic growth, now is the time to reset the relationship with Canada’s farmers, not ignore them yet again.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Business
Trump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact

From LifeSiteNews
Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics.
Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: This article, disturbing as it is, appears to explain Trump’s bizarre threats to Canada and irrational support for Carney. We present it as a possible explanation for why Trump’s interference in the Canadian election seems to have played a large role in the Liberals’ exploitation of the Trump threat and their ultimate, unexpected success.
To understand President Trump’s position on Canada, you have to go back to the 2016 election and President Trump’s position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation. If you did not follow the subsequent USMCA process, this might be the ah-ha moment you need to understand Trump’s strategy.
During the 2016 election President Trump repeatedly said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. Both Canada and Mexico were reluctant to open the trade agreement to revision, but ultimately President Trump had the authority and support from an election victory to do exactly that.
In order to understand the issue, you must remember President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer each agreed that NAFTA was fraught with problems and was best addressed by scrapping it and creating two separate bilateral trade agreements. One between the U.S. and Mexico, and one between the U.S. and Canada.
In the decades that preceded the 2017 push to redo the trade pact, Canada had restructured their economy to: (1) align with progressive climate change; and (2) take advantage of the NAFTA loophole. The Canadian government did not want to reengage in a new trade agreement.
Canada has deindustrialized much of their manufacturing base to support the “environmental” aspirations of their progressive politicians. Instead, Canada became an importer of component goods where companies then assembled those imports into finished products to enter the U.S. market without tariffs. Working with Chinese manufacturing companies, Canada exploited the NAFTA loophole.
Justin Trudeau was strongly against renegotiating NAFTA, and stated he and Chrystia Freeland would not support reopening the trade agreement. President Trump didn’t care about the position of Canada and was going forward. Trudeau said he would not support it. Trump focused on the first bilateral trade agreement with Mexico.
When the U.S. and Mexico had agreed to terms of the new trade deal and 80 percent of the agreement was finished, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed Trudeau that his position was weak and if the U.S. and Mexico inked their deal, Canada would be shut out.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was upset because they were kept out of all the details of the agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. In actuality, the U.S. CoC was effectively blocked from any participation.
When they went to talk to the Canadians the CoC was warning them about what was likely to happen. NAFTA would end, the U.S. and Mexico would have a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), and then Trump was likely to turn to Trudeau and say NAFTA is dead, now we need to negotiate a separate deal for U.S.-Canada.
Trudeau was told a direct bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada was the worst possible scenario for the Canadian government. Canada would lose access to the NAFTA loophole and Canada’s entire economy was no longer in a position to negotiate against the size of the U.S. Trump would win every demand.
Following the warning, Trudeau went to visit Nancy Pelosi to find out if Congress was likely to ratify a new bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Pelosi warned Trudeau there was enough political support for the NAFTA elimination from both parties. Yes, the bilateral trade agreement was likely to find support.
Realizing what was about to happen, Prime Minister Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland quickly changed approach and began to request discussions and meetings with USTR Robert Lighthizer. Keep in mind more than 80 to 90 percent of the agreement was already done by the U.S. and Mexico teams. Both President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and President Trump were now openly talking about when it would be finalized and signed.
Nancy Pelosi stepped in to help Canada get back into the agreement by leveraging her Democrats. Trump agreed to let Canada engage, and Lighthizer agreed to hold discussions with Chrystia Freeland on a tri-lateral trade agreement that ultimately became the USMCA.
The key points to remember are: (1) Trump, Ross, and Lighthizer would prefer two separate bilateral trade agreements because the U.S. import/export dynamic was entirely different between Mexico and Canada. And because of the loophole issue, (2) a five-year review was put into the finished USMCA trade agreement. The USMCA was signed on November 30, 2018, and came into effect on July 1, 2020.
TIMELINE: The USMCA is now up for review (2025) and renegotiation in 2026!
This timeline is the key to understanding where President Donald Trump stands today. The review and renegotiation is his goal.
President Trump said openly he was going to renegotiate the USMCA, leveraging border security (Mexico) and reciprocity (Canada) within it.
Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist.
In essence, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.
To wit, President Trump then said that if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses (which it cannot), then Canada should become the 51st U.S. state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process.
However, what everyone missed was the strategy Trump began outlining when contrast against the USMCA review and renegotiation window.
Again, Trump doesn’t like the tri-lateral trade agreement. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada. Multilateral trade agreements are difficult to manage and police.
How was President Trump going to get Canada to (a) willingly exit the USMCA; and (b) enter a bilateral trade agreement?
The answer was through trade and tariff provocations, while simultaneously hitting Canada with the shock and awe aspect of the 51st state.
The Canadian government and the Canadian people fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics. When asked about the election in Canada, President Trump said, “I don’t care. I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a liberal and maybe they’re going to win, but I don’t really care.”
By voting emotionally, the Canadian electorate have fallen into President Trump’s USMCA exit trap. Prime Minister Mark Carney will make the exit much easier. Carney now becomes the target of increased punitive coercion until such a time as the USMCA review is begun, and Canada is forced to a position of renegotiation.
Trump never wanted Canada as a 51st state.
Trump always wanted a U.S.-Canada bilateral trade agreement.
Mark Carney said the era of U.S.-Canadian economic ties “are officially declared severed.”
Canada has willingly exited the USMCA trade agreement at the perfect time for President Trump.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
NDP Floor Crossers May Give Carney A Majority
-
Alberta2 days ago
Premier Danielle Smith hints Alberta may begin ‘path’ toward greater autonomy after Mark Carney’s win
-
Alberta6 hours ago
It’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation
-
Business24 hours ago
China’s economy takes a hit as factories experience sharp decline in orders following Trump tariffs
-
Automotive1 day ago
New federal government should pull the plug on Canada’s EV revolution
-
Business1 day ago
Scott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal
-
Mental Health1 day ago
Headline that reads ‘Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court’ a sign of the times in Canada
-
International1 day ago
Javier Millei declassifies 1850+ files on Nazi leaders in Argentina