Justin Trudeau’s legacy—record-high spending and massive debt

On Monday, after weeks of turmoil and speculation, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians he’ll resign after the Liberal Party choses a new leader. There will be much talk about Trudeau’s legacy, but the modern Trudeau era was distinguished—among other things—by unprecedented levels of government spending.

The numbers don’t lie.

For example, from 2018 to 2023 Justin Trudeau recorded the six-highest levels of spending (on a per-person basis, after adjusting for inflation) in Canadian history, even after excluding emergency spending during the pandemic. For context, that means the Trudeau government spent more per person during those six years than the federal government spent during the Great Depression, both world wars and the height of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008-09.

Unsurprisingly, the Trudeau government was unable to balance the budget during his nine years in power. After first being elected in 2015, Trudeau promised to balance the budget by 2019—then ran nine consecutive deficits including an astonishing $61.9 billion deficit for the 2023/24 fiscal year, the largest deficit of any year outside of COVID.

The result? Historically high levels of government debt compared to previous prime ministers. From 2020 to 2023, the government racked up the four highest years of total federal debt per person (inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history. Compared to 2014/15 (the last full year under Prime Minister Harper), federal debt per person had increased by $14,127 (as of 2023/24).

While a portion of this debt accumulation took place during the pandemic, a sizable chunk of federal COVID-related spending was wasteful. And federal debt increased significantly before, during and after the pandemic. In short, you can’t blame COVID for the Trudeau government’s wild spending and borrowing spree.

This fiscal record, marked by record-high levels, defines Prime Minister Trudeau’s fiscal legacy, which will burden Canadians for years to come. Spending-driven deficits and debt accumulation impose costs on Canadians—largely in the form of higher debt interest costs, which will hit $53.7 billion in 2024/25 or $1,301 per person. That’s more than all revenue collected via the federal GST.

And because government borrowing pushes the responsibility of paying for today’s spending into the future, today’s debt burden will fall disproportionately on younger generations of Canadians who will face higher taxes to finance today’s borrowing. And a growing tax burden (due to debt accumulation) can hurt future economic performance and the country’s ability to compete with other jurisdictions worldwide for business investment and high-skilled workers.

Under Trudeau, Canada has had an abysmal investment record. From 2014 to 2022 (the latest year of available data), inflation-adjusted total business investment (in plants, machinery, equipment and new technologies but excluding residential construction) in Canada declined by $34 billion. During the same period, after adjusting for inflation, business investment declined by $3,748 per worker—from $20,264 per worker in 2014 to $16,515 per worker in 2022. Due in part to Canada’s collapsing business investment, incomes and living standards have stagnated in recent years.

At the same time, Trudeau raised taxes on top-earners who help drive job-creation and prosperity across the income spectrum, and increased the tax burden on middle-class Canadians. Indeed, 86 per cent of middle-income Canadian families pay more in taxes than they did in 2015.

After approximately a decade in office, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is stepping down. In his wake, he leaves behind a record of unprecedented spending, a mountain of debt, and higher taxes. It’s no wonder many Canadians are looking for change.

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss JustinTrudeauLegacy TrudeauDebt TrudeauSpending

Up Next

Feds move target for net-zero grid back 15 years. Western provinces say it’s not of their business

Don't Miss

Trump Goes Fishing, Catches A Prime Minister On The First Cast

Todayville

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.

Follow Author

Daughter convinces healthy father to die in double assisted suicide with mother

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design

National / 7 hours ago

Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case

Business

Over two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy

Published on October 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population.

According to a recent poll, there’s widespread support among Canadians for reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy. The support extends across the political spectrum. Among the political right, 82.8 per cent agree to reduce the federal bureaucracy compared to only 5.8 per cent who disagree (with the balance neither agreeing nor disagreeing); among political moderates 68.4 per cent agree and only 10.0 per cent disagree; and among the political left 44.8 per cent agree and 26.3 per cent disagree.

Taken together, “67 per cent agreed the federal bureaucracy should be significantly reduced. Only 12 per cent disagreed.” These results shouldn’t be surprising. The federal bureaucracy is ripe for cuts. From 2015 to 2024, the federal government added more than 110,000 new bureaucrats, a 43 per cent increase, which was nearly triple the rate of population growth.

This bureaucratic expansion was totally unjustified. From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population. And there are many similar examples.

While in 2025 the number of federal public service jobs fell by three per cent, the cost of the federal bureaucracy actually increased as the number of fulltime equivalents, which accounts for whether those jobs were fulltime or part-time, went up. With the tax burden created by the federal bureaucracy rising so significantly in the past decade, it’s no wonder Canadians overwhelmingly support its reduction.

Another interesting poll result: “While 42 per cent of those surveyed supported the government using artificial intelligence tools to resolve bottlenecks in service delivery, 32 per cent opposed it, with 25 per cent on the fence.” The authors of the poll say the “plurality in favour is surprising, given the novelty of the technology.”

Yet if 67 per cent of Canadians agree with significantly shrinking the federal bureaucracy, then solid support for using AI to increasing efficiency should not be too surprising, even if the technology is relatively new. Separate research finds 58 per cent of Canadian workers say they use AI tools provided by their workplace, and although many of them do not necessarily use AI regularly, of those who report using AI the majority say it improves their productivity.

In fact, there’s massive potential for the government to leverage AI to increase efficiency and control labour expenses. According to a recent study by a think-tank at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson), while the federal public service and the overall Canadian workforce are similar in terms of the percentage of roles that could be made more productive by AI, federal employees were twice as likely (58 per cent versus 29 per cent) to have jobs “comprised of tasks that are more likely to be substituted or replaced” by AI.

The opportunity to improve public service efficiency and deliver massive savings to taxpayers is clearly there. However, whether the Carney government will take advantage of this opportunity is questionable. Unlike private businesses, which must continuously innovate and improve operational efficiency to compete in a free market, federal bureaucracies face no competition. As a result, there’s little pressure or incentive to reduce costs and increase efficiency, whether through AI or other process or organizational improvements.

In its upcoming budget and beyond, it would be a shame if the federal government does not, through AI or other changes, restrain the cost of its workforce. Taxpayers deserve, and clearly demand, a break from this ever-increasing burden.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships

Published on October 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

Later this week the United Nations will hold a vote on a multi-billion climate-change tax targeted squarely at American industry. Without quick and decisive action by the White House, this U.N. tax on fossil fuels will become international law.

This resolution before the International Maritime Organization will impose a carbon tax on cargo and cruise ships that carry $20 trillion of merchandise over international waters. Roughly 80% of the bulkage of world trade is transported by ship.

The resolution is intended to advance the very “net zero” carbon emissions standard that has knee-capped the European economies for years and that American voters have rejected.

This tax is clearly an unnecessary restraint on world trade, thus making all citizens of the world poorer.

It is also an international tax that would be applied to American vessels and, as such, is a dangerous precedent-setting assault on U.S. sovereignty. Since when are American businesses subject to international taxes imposed by the United Nations?

The U.S maritime industry believes the global tax would cost American shippers more than $100 billion over the next seven years if enacted.

Worst of all, if the resolution passes, it will require the retirement of older ships and enable a multi-billion-dollar wealth transfer to China, which has come to dominate shipbuilding in recent years. China STRONGLY supports the tax scheme, even though, ironically, no nation has emitted more pollutants into the atmosphere than they have. Yet WE are getting socked with a tax that indirectly pays for THEIR pollution.

Despite the fact that we pay a disproportionate share of the tax, the U.S. has almost no say on how the revenues are spent. This is the ultimate form of taxation without representation.

Even if the United States chooses not to implement the tax on domestic shipping, it will still be enforced by foreign ports of origin or destination as well as by flag states. As a result, American importers and exporters will be required to pay the tax regardless of domestic policy decisions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy have jointly stated that America “will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or our businesses.” They call the financial impact on the U.S. of this global carbon tax “disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.”

The U.S. maritime industry complains that although American vessels carry only about 12% of the globally shipped merchandise, U.S. flag vessels would bear almost 20% of this tax. No wonder China and Europe are for it. The EU nations get 17 yes votes to swamp the one no vote out of Washington.

Unfortunately, right now without White House pressure, we could lose this vote because of defections by our allies.

To prevent this tax, the White House should announce a set of retaliation measures. This could include a dollar-for-dollar reduction in U.S. payments to NATO, the U.N., IMF and World Bank.

At a time when financial markets are dealing with trade disputes, the last thing the world — least of all the United States — needs is a United Nations excise tax on trade.

Stephen Moore is co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.