Finance officials bit their nails and nervously watched the clock. There were 30 minutes left in a bond auction aimed at funding the deficit and there was not a single bid.
Sounds like today’s Italy or Greece? No, this was Canada in 1994.
Bids eventually came in, but that close call, along with downgrades and the Wall Street Journal calling Canada “an honorary member of the Third World,” helped the nation’s people and politicians understand how scary its budget problem was.
“There would have been a day when we would have been the Greece of today,” recalled then-Canadian prime minister Jean Chretien, a Liberal who ended up chopping cherished social programs in one of the most dramatic fiscal turnarounds ever.
“I knew we were in a bind and we had to do something,” Chretien, 77, said in a rare interview.
Canada’s shift from pariah to fiscal darling provides lessons for Washington as lawmakers find few easy answers to the huge US deficit and debt burden, and for European countries staggering under their own massive budget problems.
“Everyone wants to know how we did it,” said political economist Brian Lee Crowley, head of the Ottawa-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank, who has examined the lessons of the 1990s.
To win its budget wars, Canada first had to realize how dire its situation was and then dramatically shrink the size of government rather than just limit the pace of spending growth.
It would eventually oversee the biggest reduction in Canadian government spending since demobilization after World War II. The big cuts, and relatively small tax increases, brought a budget surplus within four years.
Canadian debt shrank to 29 percent of GDP in 2008-2009, from a peak of 68 percent in 1995-1996. The budget was in the black for 11 consecutive years until the 2008-2009 recession.
For Canada, the vicious debt circle turned into a virtuous cycle that rescued a currency which had been dubbed the “northern peso.” Canada went from having the second-worst fiscal position in the G7 industrialized countries, behind only Italy, to easily the best.
It is far from a coincidence that the recent recession was shorter and shallower in Canada than in the US. Indeed, by January, Canada had recovered all the jobs lost in the downturn, while the US has been hardly able to dent its high unemployment.
“We used to thank God that Italy was there because we were the second worst in the G7,” said Scott Clark, associate deputy finance minister in the 1990s.
Canada’s experience turned on its head the prevailing wisdom that spending promises were the easiest way to win elections. Politicians of all kinds and at all levels of government learned that austerity could win.
DECIDING TO ACT
The turnaround began with Chretien’s arrival as prime minister in November 1993, when his Liberal Party — in some ways Canada’s equivalent of the Democrats in the US — swept to victory with a strong majority. The new government took one look at the dreadful state of the books and decided to act.
“I said to myself, I will do it. I might be prime minister for only one term, but I will do it,” Chretien said.
A shrewd political strategist, Chretien believed Canadians were on board, after they were shocked and embarrassed a year earlier when Standard & Poor’s (S&P) downgraded Canadian foreign currency debt to “AA+” from “AAA.”
He wanted history to remember him as the man who rescued Canada from financial ruin and humiliation.
Chretien sat his skeptical Cabinet down and laid down the hard truth. He would get rid of the deficit — it would be painful and unpopular and nobody would be spared. There was no choice, no room for negotiation. It had to be done.
The chill in the room was such that newly appointed junior minister for veterans affairs, Lawrence MacAulay, called his wife afterward to say he would soon be out of a job.
“He said, ‘Darling, I will be back home in the next election. I will be defeated, because the prime minister explained to us this morning what he intended to do,’” according to Chretien’s recollection.
MacAulay, who represents the Prince Edward Island fishing community of Cardigan, has been re-elected six times and sits in the House of Commons today. He couldn’t be immediately reached for comment to recall the conversation.
RAISING THE ALARM
Canada’s scrape with disaster had been building for a long time.
Over a decade earlier, top finance department bureaucrats had begun raising the alarm about the problem of rising debt, a hangover from the big-government era of the 1970s.
The period before Chretien came to power in Canada is often likened to the situation in the US today. The country was not yet peering over a precipice, but was fast approaching it.
Clark said he and his colleagues sent memos to their bosses in the 1980s explaining “the arithmetic”: Growth was low, interest rates were high and it was only a matter of time before Ottawa would not be able to pay interest on its debt.
However, successive governments had ignored the warnings and wrote budgets that allowed spending to continue to grow.
“It was hugely frustrating,” Clark said. “Every year we put out forecasts showing the deficit going away. We just based every budget on ridiculous assumptions.”
The budget deficit more than doubled between 1980 and 1990, rising to 8 percent of GDP in 1983 and 1984, before shrinking to a still unsustainable 5.6 percent just before Chretien took over, and all the time debt was soaring. The debt-to-GDP ratio shot up to 67 percent in 1993-1994 from 29 percent in 1980.
The numbers are not that different from the US today with its deficit of about 9 percent for this year and debt-to-GDP ratio at 74 percent, up from 40 percent at the end of 2008.
Drawing a parallel with Washington, Clark said Canadian leaders before Chretien paid lip service to the debt problem, but did nothing.
“There are no lights blinking saying you’re at the edge of the cliff,” he said. “The one lesson others can give the US is that the higher that debt-to-GDP ratio goes, the more difficult it’s going to be.”
Canada already faced a gaping current account deficit, a weakening currency and high interest rates, and more misery was inevitable if the debt crisis was not addressed.
The first kick in the teeth from abroad came from the October 1992 S&P downgrade.
Even two decades later, Don Drummond, in charge of the budget at the finance ministry at the time, bristles at the memory, saying that the downgrade should have been “completely irrelevant” because so little of Canada’s debt was in foreign currency, but the damage to public opinion was done.
“We were just mobbed by the media. Here’s some foreign institution that says Canada is a basket case. If we had had a Canadian agency downgrade us, probably nobody would have shown up,” Drummond said.
The politicians had ignored the bureaucrats, but there was no way to sweep international criticism under the rug.
“Fear drives people. It drove us,” Clark said.
‘BANKRUPT CANADA’
The Liberals thought their first, rushed budget — delivered in February 1994, three months after taking office — was tough.
It reformed unemployment insurance entitlements and cut defense and foreign aid, as well as closed some business tax loopholes and ended a C$100,000 (US$95,000) lifetime capital gains exemption. The savings totaled C$10 billion over two years.
The government said it would review all programs and predicted a deficit of 3 percent of GDP in 1996. However, program spending was still budgeted to rise slightly and the budget was widely seen as a failure.
Pete DeVries, who headed the fiscal policy division, remembers overhearing chatter from economists’ and others as he waited for a flight to Toronto just after the budget.
“The mood was so depressed on that plane that I thought we’re never going to get off the ground and if we did get off the ground we’d crash, because it was just doom and gloom,” he said. “Everywhere you heard the words: ‘They don’t get it. They just don’t get it.’”
Voters certainly didn’t get it. People who had canceled vacations or taken a second job to make ends meet in the recession could not understand why Ottawa thought it could live beyond its means.
The upstart Reform Party, then the main national opposition party, had campaigned on “zero-in-three” — balance the budget in three years.
“We were always trying to go faster,” said Reform’s leader at the time, Preston Manning.
Three months later, Moody’s Investors Service lowered its rating on Canada’s foreign currency debt, citing the government’s large and growing debt.
In December 1994, Mexico suffered a run on its currency and the following month the Wall Street Journal stung with its “Bankrupt Canada” editorial, lumping Canada with Mexico as a country that might need an IMF bailout.
FACING THE MUSIC
The Liberals were stung by the criticism and, at first reluctantly, but then with gusto, they got out the chain saws.
“I think the Moody’s and Wall Street Journal stuff reflected what we knew inside,” then-industry minister John Manley said.
Cutting government spending programs went against the Liberal grain. Contrary to the Reform Party, the Liberals saw a more important role for government.
Paul Martin now has a lasting reputation as the finance minister who slayed Canada’s deficit, but the conversion from spender to cutter was painful. His father, also called Paul, had helped create Medicare, Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system, and suddenly here was Paul Junior contemplating massive cuts.
Clark remembers riding in a taxi with Martin after meetings in New York.
“He said, ‘I don’t want to do this. I don’t want to do this.’ And I said to him, ‘You don’t have any choice because if we don’t do it that means you won’t be able to keep the programs you’ve already got. We’re going to go over the cliff and we’ll be cutting like you won’t even believe,’” Clark said.
“We told him you are still a Liberal, but you have to be a small ‘c’ fiscal conservative to be a nice good Liberal,” Clark said.
In the end, Martin famously vowed to tackle the deficit “come hell or high water.”
Chretien and Martin later parted ways bitterly, but they formed a formidable duo during the budget cutting.
At one 1994 Cabinet meeting, Martin announced a spending freeze. A minister put forward a project that needed funding but Chretien cut him off, reminding him of Martin’s freeze.
A second minister raised his hand to ask for funding and a testy Chretien told the Cabinet that the next minister to ask for new money would see his whole budget cut by 20 percent.
Chretien’s scrappiness, which was one result of his upbringing in a working-class family in rural Quebec, had already earned him the nickname of “Dr No” when he was finance minister in the 1970s.
“The prime minister was the man with the steel rod up his spine. He was inflexible,” Manley said.
For ministers it was brutal. Manley lost half his budget as industry minister in the 1994 budget and went from 54 programs down to 11.
“Everyone knew they had to face the music, and they did it,” Chretien said in the interview in his law offices. “They had no choice. There was no great debate. I had made my view very clear.”
THE PAYOFF DECADE
The ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes was seven-to-one.
Asked why, Chretien said simply: “There was more need on one side than the other.”
That contrasts with proposals this year by US President Barack Obama and the Democrats to have a much higher proportion of revenue increases in the deficit-tackling mix.
Canadian ministers were told how much they had to cut and then told to come back with a plan on how to do it. Cuts ranged from 5 percent to 65 percent of departmental budgets and included controversial cuts in transfers that help provinces pay for health and education, decisions that lengthened medical waiting lists for years to come.
Chretien exempted just a few areas from the cuts, including the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. He also blocked big changes to benefits for the elderly and made sure tax collectors had enough resources.
In the end, program spending — everything except interest payments on the debt — fell by about 12 percent, or C$14 billion, between 1994-1995 and 1998-1999. The percentage fall was substantially more after adjusting for inflation.
The gloomy Canadian reaction to the 1994 budget changed to applause in 1995.
“People came up to me to say: ‘You guys got it,’” DeVries said.
The deficit disappeared by 1997 and the debt-to-GDP ratio began a rapid decline — it is now at about 34 percent.
“The entire political class decided to stop treating this as a matter of political contention and started treating it as a matter of national interest,” Crowley said.
After wrestling the deficit to the ground, Canada enjoyed what Crowley calls the payoff decade, outperforming the rest of the G7 on growth, job creation and inward investment. From 1997 to 2007, it averaged 3.3 percent economic growth, while US growth averaged 2.9 percent.
The Canadian dollar weakened from about C$1.38 to the US dollar at the time of the 1995 budget to almost C$1.62 in 2002, helping make Canada more competitive. However, it has since roared back and now stands close to parity with the greenback.
Canadians are the first to admit that a lot of their success was the result of good timing that cannot be replicated today. The rosy global economy then contrasts with today’s turmoil. There was no eurozone crisis to worry about. The US and China were growing fast, demanding Canadian exports. Nobody else was reining in spending.
Canadian interest rates plummeted by more than 1,000 basis points between 1990 and 1994, generating huge savings on debt payments and encouraging business investment.
Clark says the US dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency might be disguising Washington’s problems and means the critical period could be a ways away.
“There’s no market discipline,” Clark said. “People want to buy US Treasuries and they always know they will get paid.”
The parliamentary political system also helped Chretien, since there is no effective division of powers between the executive and legislative branches as in the US. A prime minister with a majority in the House of Commons can push through whatever he wants.
And politicians were almost all on board. The opposition Reform Party was screaming for even deeper cuts and public opinion was ahead of the politicians in calling for austerity.
LESSONS TO LEARN
Some of Canada’s lessons are applicable elsewhere and Britain’s Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives both cited the Canadian model when peddling their austerity plans to voters in their successful election campaigns last year.
Chretien said he had had no qualms in telling Britain’s coalition government that it was wrong to exempt areas such as the National Health Service, regarded as sacred by many in Britain, from the drastic spending cuts.
“I told them they made a mistake,” Chretien said. “I remember talking with a very senior person in health who said to me privately: ‘I’m not very happy that I’m exempt’ ... He needed the same pressure as the others.”
The Canadian mantra was to go big, spreading the pain and sparing no one, to prevent rivalries and resentment.
“You have to take immediate action and it’s got to be primarily on the spending side ... but at the same time everybody has got to come to the market and that really means tax increases as well,” Martin said.
Members of the deficit slaying team have since advised countries as far ranging as Bahrain and Bangladesh. Canada has touted its fiscal record to push for coordinated deficit reduction in the G20 most powerful economies.
Some veterans of Canada’s successful rebound believe the US needs a value-added tax similar to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Canada’s Conservatives introduced in 1991.
The Liberals say they were pragmatic, not ideological, on taxes. However, they could not boost tax revenues much because Canadians’ top marginal income tax rate was already uncompetitive at about 55 percent and the unpopular GST was already on the books.
The Reform Party’s Manning said the US spending-versus-tax debate does not have to be a question of either/or, but he saw a lesson from the way Ottawa cut its own fat before holding out its hand to taxpayers.
“So you don’t completely rule out tax changes or tax increases in the future, but you make them conditional on achieving a certain degree of financial order now,” he said.
Former bureaucrats also say flat, across-the-board spending cuts are a bad idea, even though it’s more palatable to staff to shave 5 percent off the top of each program.
Unless whole programs are killed, departments might simply postpone vitally needed capital spending, including such things as maintenance and repair, and have to boost it back to former levels within a few years.
The final lesson is that you can impose painful spending cuts and still win elections. Chretien went on to win two more back-to-back to form majority governments — a rare feat. He argued that a responsible Liberal who believes the state has a role in reducing poverty can only do so by ensuring a financially healthy government.
Drummond, who later moved to the private sector and is now an adviser helping the Ontario provincial government slash its deficit, said that governments on the right and left in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario won more voter support after their own budget cuts in the 1990s.
“Brutal, brutal fiscal restraint, and all won majority governments right afterward,” he said.
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
On April 11, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a speech at a joint meeting of the US Congress in Washington, in which he said that “China’s current external stance and military actions present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge … to the peace and stability of the international community.” Kishida emphasized Japan’s role as “the US’ closest ally.” “The international order that the US worked for generations to build is facing new challenges,” Kishida said. “I understand it is a heavy burden to carry such hopes on your shoulders,” he said. “Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder
Former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) used to push for reforms to protect Taiwan by adopting the “three noes” policy as well as “Taiwanization.” Later, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) wished to save the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) by pushing for the party’s “localization,” hoping to compete with homegrown political parties as a pro-Taiwan KMT. However, the present-day members of the KMT do not know what they are talking about, and do not heed the two former presidents’ words, so the party has suffered a third consecutive defeat in the January presidential election. Soon after gaining power with the help of the KMT’s