From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The Carney government is not making deep cuts but rather simply slowing the pace of spending increases. In fact, Prime Minister Carney is on track to be a much bigger spender than Justin Trudeau (the highest-spending prime minister in Canadian history)

Earlier this month, federal Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne told his fellow cabinet members to present “ambitious savings proposals” to help constrain federal spending. In response, public-sector unions cried foul while some pundits inexplicably compared Champagne’s request to the Chrétien government’s substantial spending cuts in the 1990s.

Time for a reality check. Champagne told cabinet ministers to find operational savings in their respective departments of 7.5 per cent in 2026/27, 10 per cent in 2027/28 and 15 per cent in 2028/29. But the government will exclude more than half of all federal spending from this so-called “comprehensive expenditure review” on things such as individual benefits (e.g. Old Age Security) and transfers to the provinces (health care, etc.).

According to the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), these “draconian rollbacks” will produce massive “cuts to direct program spending” over the next three years. But that almost certainly will not be the case. While we won’t know for sure until the federal budget finally arrives in the fall, the “cuts” proposed by the Carney government won’t actually reduce overall spending. In fact, federal spending will likely increase.

Here’s why. In December, The Trudeau government planned to increase program spending from $504.1 billion in 2025/26 to $547.8 billion by 2028/29. According to rough calculations based on the Liberal Party election platform, the Carney government plans to further increase spending to a projected $533.3 billion in 2025/26 and $566.4 billion in 2028/29. The government also plans to substantially increase military spending on top of these increases. So, any “ambitious savings proposals” over the next three years may help cover some, but almost certainly not all, of these planned spending increases.

To put this in context, consider a household that spent $500 on entertainment in 2025 and plans to double that amount to $1,000 by 2028. Then some unforeseen circumstance makes that family scale back its plans. They decide to trim the $1,000 by 15 per cent and now only plan to spend $850 by 2028. This is not a cut or reduction in year-over-year spending—they still plan to spend 70 per cent more on entertainment three years from now than they do today. The family simply slowed the growth rate of planned spending. However, if the family reduced entertainment spending by 15 per cent from current levels ($500 in 2025), they would spend $425 in 2028.

Likewise, the Carney government is not making deep cuts but rather simply slowing the pace of spending increases. In fact, Prime Minister Carney is on track to be a much bigger spender than Justin Trudeau (the highest-spending prime minister in Canadian history) and plans to borrow a projected $224.8 billion over the next four years to pay for this profligate spending—$93.4 billion more than Trudeau planned to borrow. Again, this is not austerity.

And what about those allusions to the Chrétien spending reductions of the ’90s? Back then, the federal government did not merely slow the growth in spending, but instead reduced spending year-over-year by $11.9 billion (or 9.7 per cent) over a two-year period. Chrétien made difficult decisions and left nothing off the table in his spending review (except what was then called the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs). He reduced transfers to the provinces, reduced department expenses, and shrunk the size of bureaucracy by nearly 15 per cent.

Ignore the voices who call the Carney government’s “ambitious savings” plan the “worst spending cuts in modern history.” It’s wildly inaccurate and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of fiscal policy. Carney is actually poised to become an even bigger spender than Justin Trudeau.

From The Center Square

By Tom Joyce

“BlackRock is playing a game of deceit. Fink and his team are trying to say all the right things to conservatives while quietly doubling down on their activist agenda behind the scenes.”

A group of 26 financial officers from 21 states sent letters to 18 major financial institutions this week, warning them to abandon environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices if they wish to continue doing business with their states.

The letters said ESG has undermined the traditional fiduciary duty that firms owe their clients, focusing solely on financial return, and instead prioritizes advancing political agendas.

“Fiduciary duty has long been a critical safeguard that facilitated efficient capital allocation grounded in financial merit rather than political ideology,” the letter said. “But that clarity is being diluted under the banner of so-called ‘long-term risk mitigation,’ where speculative assumptions about the future, like climate change catastrophe, are used to justify ideological conclusions today.”

Signers include state treasurers, auditors, and comptrollers from states like Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Utah. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and 17 other financial leaders were recipients of the joint letter. Others include executives from Vanguard, Fidelity, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and State Street.

The letter said that while some firms have started leaving global climate coalitions and reducing ESG-related proxy votes, the state financial officers want “durable assurances” that fiduciary duty, not politics, drives investment decisions.

“While some firms have recently taken encouraging steps, such as withdrawing from global climate coalitions and scaling back ESG rhetoric and proxy votes, and some states have permitted incremental reintegration, more work must be done,” the letter said. “The number one issue is a recommitment to the foundational principles of fiduciary duty, loyalty, objectivity, and financial focus.”

The move comes after Texas removed BlackRock from its blacklist earlier this month and resumed investing with the firm – a move that drew criticism from others still pushing back against ESG. The letter indicates that many states won’t follow suit.

“Financial institutions wishing to compete for our states’ business should provide durable assurances that their practices align with these principles,” the letter said. “Our responsibility is to ensure public assets are managed in the best financial interest of beneficiaries and taxpayers.”

O.J. Oleka, president of the State Financial Officers Foundation, said the states are right to demand proof that ESG is no longer a factor in investing for these companies.

“Actions always speak louder than words. Requiring America’s financial giants to prove their independence from woke ideology with concrete steps before doing business with a state’s dollars is fully necessary and just makes sense,” Oleka said. “These financial officers are doing the right thing for their states and the taxpayers whose financial security they’ve been entrusted to protect.”

Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, also praised the letter.

“BlackRock is playing a game of deceit,” Hild said. “Fink and his team are trying to say all the right things to conservatives while quietly doubling down on their activist agenda behind the scenes.”