Business
As Ottawa meddles with pension funds, Albertans should consider provincial pension plan
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Who Should Control Canada’s Pension Wealth?
Ottawa wants to compel large pools of Canadian money to be invested in Canada, instead of allowing investment funds to find the best return for Canadian investors.
Last week, another scandalous and potentially corrupt string of federal activities popped up.
This one has deep implications for pension plans in Canada, including the debate about an Alberta Pension Plan. Mark Carney’s double game of politics and profit enhances the drive to patriate Alberta’s pension wealth.
At issue is a report in the media saying that Brookfield may be looking to raise a $50 billion fund with contributions from Canada’s pension funds and an additional $10 billion from the federal government.
This report has drawn significant attention for several reasons. Toronto-based Brookfield is one of the world’s largest alternative investment management companies, claiming about one trillion in assets under management. Their portfolio spans real estate, renewable energy, infrastructure, and private equity, making them a significant player in domestic and international markets. The magnitude of Brookfield’s investments places them at the forefront of global financial movements, giving considerable weight to any fund they propose to establish.
The second reason is that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have voiced their ambitions to boost home-grown investments. One of the government’s strategies includes tapping into Stephen Poloz, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada. Poloz succeeded Mark Carney as the head of the bank. The Liberal government has tasked Poloz with leading a working group to identify “incentives” that would “encourage” institutional investors to keep their capital in Canada.
Moreover, Finance Minister Freeland has suggested implementing new regulations to ensure that more of Canada’s substantial pension fund reserves, which amount to an impressive $1.8 trillion, are allocated toward Canadian ventures. This comes when a staggering 73% of Canadian pension funds are invested abroad.
On its face, a plan to invest more Canadian wealth in Canada might sound reasonable. However, the plan avoids the crucial question of why money experts prefer investing outside Canada. Considering that question, one must consider the Trudeau government’s economic record.
Put differently, Ottawa is looking for ways to compel large pools of Canadian money to be invested in Canada instead of allowing investment funds to find the best return for Canadian investors. Those large cash pools typically belong to hard-working Canadians, such as teachers’ pensions. They would be forced to earn less for their pension money.
Forcing such large sums to remain in Canada would mask the continuous slump in productivity in the Canadian economy.
Given current economic policies and layers of taxation that do not exist elsewhere (such as the unpopular carbon taxes), Canadian companies are less competitive. Forcing pools of money to stay in Canada rather than seeking the best return for their clients offers an artificial boost that makes Ottawa policies seem less harmful.
It is, therefore, a politically motivated move. That level of government intervention historically always results in disastrous consequences. Politics directing traffic for the movement of capital rarely achieves good outcomes. The real issue is sagging productivity.
But that is only half the problem. The other significant issue is ethics.
Prime Minister Trudeau has recently named Mark Carney as his special economic advisor. Carney is the Chair of Asset Management and Head of Transition Investing at Brookfield. The Brookfield website shows Carney is responsible for “developing products for investors.” Carney is also the most mentioned name among people likely to succeed Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
In short, the man who closely advises the government of Canada on how to compel gargantuan pools of money to be invested in Canada conveniently oversees the development of the “product” for the private Toronto firm, through which that money would be forced to be invested in Canada. Furthermore, the same firm reportedly seeks (read lobbying) from the federal government an infusion of $10 billion for the new fund.
As a Liberal and a potential party leader, given Justin Trudeau’s fortunes, Mark Carney could become prime minister in the immediate future. This means that Carney would benefit from creating new rules forcing investment money to stay in the country in two ways: As a leading man at Brookfield, Carney and the firm stand to make tens of millions from the policy. Second, as a carbon tax enthusiast, once squarely in political office, Carney would benefit from masking the ill, underproductive effects of the radical green agenda and carbon taxes he supports.
When Alberta progressives oppose the desire of many Albertans to patriate Alberta pension funds to the province, they cite concerns that the province might use the funds for political purposes, undermining the maximum return. This is not an outlandish concern, in some respects, given the history of the Alberta Heritage Fund.
However, it is not an exclusive danger inherent to the Alberta government. It does not warrant the presupposition that the federal government is a better steward of Alberta’s pension wealth, as demonstrated by the developments above. All things being equal, and unless human nature is outlawed by federal statute, the risks are the same.
But if something goes wrong with Albertans’ pension wealth, would they rather deal with people in Alberta than people in Ottawa, half a continent away Raising Alberta voices in Ottawa when Ottawa has been bent on doing the opposite of what is good for Albertans has never produced good results or reversed the nefarious effects on Albertans.
Ottawa politicians will do what is best for Laurentians every single time. The history of the Dominion, from the national policy to Crow rates and the National Energy Policy to Carbon Taxes, shows Ottawa policies always favour vote-rich Laurentia first and foremost.
Mark Carney’s product development for Brookfield shows, at worst, that Alberta’s pension wealth is just as much as risk with federal policies driven by political motivations. This one would be doubly bad because it is meant to serve and benefit Carney and his Bay Street friends as much as it is designed to help his future colleagues in Ottawa. And on both counts, Carney would benefit as a financier and politician.
Albertans should take their money and run.
Marco Navarro-Genie is Vice President Research with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of COVID-19: The Politics of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2020).
Business
Canada Scrambles To Secure Border After Trump Threatens Massive Tariff
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Hopkins
The Canadian government made clear its beefing up its border security apparatus after President-elect Donald Trump threatened to impose sweeping tariffs against Canada and Mexico if the flow of illegal immigration and drugs are not reined in.
Trump in November announced on social media that he would impose a 25% tariff on all products from Canada and Mexico unless both countries do more to limit the level of illicit drugs and illegal immigration entering into the United States. In response, Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with the president-elect at his residence in Mar-a-Largo and his government has detailed what more it’s doing to bolster immigration enforcement.
“We got, I think, a mutual understanding of what they’re concerned about in terms of border security,” Minister of Public Safety Dominic LeBlanc, who accompanied Trudeau at Mar-a-Largo, said of the meeting in an interview with Canadian media. “All of their concerns are shared by Canadians and by the government of Canada.”
“We talked about the security posture currently at the border that we believe to be effective, and we also discussed additional measures and visible measures that we’re going to put in place over the coming weeks,” LeBlanc continued. “And we also established, Rosemary, a personal series of rapport that I think will continue to allow us to make that case.”
Trudeau’s Liberal Party-led government has pivoted on border enforcement since its first days in power.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) — the country’s law enforcement arm that patrols the border — is preparing to beef up its immigration enforcement capabilities by hiring more staff, adding more vehicles and creating more processing facilities, in the chance that there is an immigration surge sparked by Trump’s presidential election victory. The moves are a change in direction from Trudeau’s public declaration in January 2017 that Canada was a “welcoming” country and that “diversity is our strength” just days after Trump was sworn into office the first time.
While encounters along the U.S.-Canada border remain a fraction of what’s experienced at the southern border, activity has risen in recent months. Border Patrol agents made nearly 24,000 apprehensions along the northern border in fiscal year 2024 — marking a roughly 140% rise in apprehensions made the previous fiscal year, according to the latest data from Customs and Border Protection.
“While a change to U.S. border policy could result in an increase in migrants traveling north toward the Canada-U.S. border and between ports of entry, the RCMP now has valuable tools and insights to address this movement that were not previously in place,” read an RCMP statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “New mechanisms have been established which enable the RCMP to effectively manage apprehensions of irregular migrants between the ports.”
Trudeau’s pivot on illegal immigration enforcement follows the Canadian population growing more hawkish on the issue, public opinion surveys have indicated. Other polls also indicate Trudeau’s Liberal Party will face a beating at the voting booth in October 2025 against the Conservative Party, led by Member of Parliament Pierre Poilievre.
Trudeau’s recent overtures largely differ from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who has indicated she is not willing to bend the knee to Trump’s tariff threats. The Mexican leader in November said “there will be a response in kind” to any tariff levied on Mexican goods going into the U.S., and she appeared to deny the president-elect’s claims that she agreed to do more to beef up border security in a recent phone call.
Trump, who has vowed to embark on an incredibly hawkish immigration agenda once he re-enters office, has tapped a number of hardliners to lead his efforts. The president-elect announced South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem to lead the Department of Homeland Security, former acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan to serve as border czar and longtime aide Stephen Miller to serve as deputy chief of staff for policy.
Automotive
Electric-vehicle sales show modest spark
From Resource Works
Fuel-powered cars still outsell EVs in Canada by almost 7:1
While the federal government pushes electric vehicles (and other zero-emission vehicles), Canadians seem to be somewhat less enthusiastic about them.
Ottawa calls them all ZEVs and says: “Canada is committed to decarbonizing the country’s transportation sector and becoming a global leader in ZEVs. As such, the Government of Canada is aiming for 100% of new light-duty sales to be zero-emission by 2035.”
However, even with rebates offered by Ottawa and eight provinces and territories, Canadians are proving a little reluctant to make the switch—especially to pure battery-only electric vehicles (EVs).
For example, in the second quarter of this year, Statistics Canada reported sales of 511,173 new motor vehicles, the largest number since the third quarter of 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Of those 511,173 vehicles, 445,231 (87.1%) were traditional carbon-fuel cars, vans, and light trucks. Meanwhile, 65,733 were EVs (12.9%). Thus, fuel-powered cars outsold EVs by a ratio of 6.8 to one.
Among the 65,733 EVs sold, 48,511 were pure battery-only vehicles, while 17,222 were hybrid models with both electric and carbon-fuel drives.
This is not quite what Ottawa had hoped for.
(Incidentally, 51.6% of all new EV registrations were in Quebec, followed by Ontario at 21.9%, and British Columbia at 18.5%. In the Statistics Canada survey, the numbers for BC also include the territories.)
When market research company J.D. Power surveyed new-vehicle shoppers in Canada, respondents who said they wouldn’t consider an EV cited high prices, concerns about travel range, and challenges with charging the battery as key reasons.
J.D. Ney of J.D. Power notes that mainstream vehicle buyers are less wealthy and more practical, making them harder to persuade to switch from gas-powered cars.
“If I make a mistake buying an EV or it doesn’t suit my lifestyle, that’s a $65,000 problem. It’s the second-biggest purchase that most Canadians will make. And so, I think they are rightfully cautious.”
As of March 1 (the latest figures available), Canada had 27,181 public charging ports located at 11,077 public charging stations across the country.
Of those 27,181 charging ports, 22,246 are “standard” Level 2 chargers, while 4,935 are fast chargers.
This means Canadians with battery-electric vehicles often face challenges finding an available public port, and, if they do find one, it could take hours to recharge their car from low to 100%. Most ZEV drivers opt instead to “top up” their batteries, but even that can take many minutes.
The availability of fast chargers in Canada is on the rise, with EV manufacturer Tesla adding more “superchargers” that can be used by non-Tesla owners if their vehicles are equipped with the right plug-in adapter or if the owners purchase a suitable adapter.
Electric vehicles are also improving their range, with some models now able to travel as much as 800 km before needing a major recharge. The average range is 435 km, although some older ZEVs still have ranges in the low hundreds.
Potential ranges drop, however, in Canadian cold weather. Some EVs can lose up to 30% of their range in freezing temperatures, and charging times can also increase in the cold.
The concerns and caution of customers have resonated with EV manufacturers.
As CBC News reported: “Just a few years ago, carmakers were investing billions of dollars into their electric lineups and pledging they would soon stop building gas-powered cars.
“But customers aren’t going fully electric as quickly as predicted, so many companies are making adjustments to better meet demand.
“General Motors has scaled back its electric vehicle production this year and will build an estimated 50,000 fewer EVs. Ford is shifting its strategy, stalling plans for an electric SUV and building a hybrid version instead.
“These companies are still losing money on EVs. Despite all that, the carmakers insist they’re still committed to the cause.”
In April, Honda announced plans to invest $11 billion in electric vehicle and battery plants in Ontario. The project aims to produce 240,000 EVs annually, with production expected to begin in 2028.
At the same time, construction of a $7-billion EV battery plant in Quebec could take up to 18 months longer than originally planned, according to the Quebec government.
Production at the Northvolt plant was slated to begin in 2026 to compete with Chinese-made batteries. However, while construction continues, a review by Northvolt could result in a reassessment of the timetable. This review followed Northvolt’s bankruptcy filing in the U.S.
Here in Canada, Ottawa began in August imposing a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs. The aim is to protect the domestic EV market from inexpensive Chinese imports. But President-elect Donald Trump proposes a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada, including Canadian-made EVs and parts. This is causing huge concern for firms planning to build EVs and/or EV parts in Canada for export to the U.S.
Returning to EVs: The federal government’s goals are for 20% of new cars sold to be ZEVs by 2026, 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2035.
Carmakers, however, have said those goals won’t be achievable unless Ottawa does more to boost charging infrastructure and address EV affordability.
“We have all of the ingredients for Canada to succeed in this sector,” says Brian Kingston, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association. “I’m convinced we’ll continue to see growth in EV adoption, but we do have to address some of those barriers to demand.”
-
Opinion1 day ago
CBC on Trial: CBC CEO Catherine Tait Faces Brutal Takedown in Canadian Heritage Committee Hearing
-
COVID-191 day ago
Study showing ‘high likelihood’ of link between COVID vaccines and death republished in peer-reviewed journal
-
COVID-191 day ago
New book edited by Naomi Wolf exposes Pfizer’s ‘crimes against humanity’
-
Alberta1 day ago
The Alberta energy transition you haven’t heard about
-
Dr John Campbell1 day ago
Cancer cure experiences
-
Business2 days ago
The Health Research Funding Scandal Costing Canadians Billions is Parading in Plain View
-
Energy2 days ago
Is Canada the next nuclear superpower?
-
espionage1 day ago
Shock interview reveals big names connected to international paedophile network