Connect with us

Fraser Institute

Trudeau and Ford should attach personal fortunes to EV corporate welfare

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Tegan Hill

Last week, with their latest tranche of corporate welfare for the electric vehicle (EV) sector, the Trudeau and Ford governments announced a $5.0 billion subsidy for Honda to help build an EV battery plant and ultimately manufacture EVs in Ontario. Here’s a challenge: if politicians in both governments truly believe these measures are in the public interest, they should tie their personal fortunes with the outcomes of these subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare).

One of the major challenges with corporate welfare is the horrendous economic incentives. The politicians and bureaucrats who distribute corporate welfare have no vested financial interest in the outcome of the program. Whether these programs are spectacularly successful (or more likely spectacular failures), the politicians and bureaucrats experience no direct financial gain or loss. Simply put, they’re investing taxpayer money, not their own.

Put differently, the discipline imposed on investors in private markets, such as the risk of losing money or even going out of business, is wholly absent in the government sector. Indeed, the history of corporate welfare in Canada, at both the federal and provincial levels, is rife with abject failures due in large measure to the absence of this investing discipline.

In the last 12 months in Ontario, automakers have been major beneficiaries of corporate welfare. The $5.0 billion for Honda is on top of $13.2 billion to Volkswagen and $15.0 billion to Stellantis. That equates to roughly $979 per taxpayer nationally for federal subsidies and an additional $1,372 for Ontario taxpayers. And these figures do not include the debt interest costs that will be incurred as both governments are borrowing money to finance the subsidies.

And there’s legitimate reason to be skeptical already of the potential success of these largescale industrial interventions by the federal (Liberal) and Ontario (Conservative) governments. EV sales in both Canada and the United States have not grown as expected by governments despite purchase subsidies. Disappointing EV sales have led several auto manufacturers including Toyota and Ford to scale-back their EV production plans.

There are also real concerns about the practical ability of EV manufacturers to secure required materials. Consider the minerals needed for EV batteries. According to a recent study, 388 new mines—including 50 lithium mines, 60 nickel mines and 17 cobalt mines—would be required by 2030 to meet EV adoption commitments by various governments. For perspective, there were a total of 340 metal mines operating across Canada and the U.S. in 2021. The massive task of finding, constructing and developing this level of new mines seems impractical and unattainable, meaning that EV plants being built now will struggle to secure needed inputs. Indeed, depending on the type of mine, it takes anywhere from six to 18 years to develop.

Which brings us back to the Trudeau and Ford governments. Given the economic incentive problems and practical challenges to a large-scale transition to EVs, would members of the Trudeau and Ford governments—including the prime minister and premier—want to attach a portion of their personal pensions to the success of these corporate welfare programs?

More specifically, assume an arrangement whereby those politicians would share the benefits of the program’s success but also share any losses through the value of their pensions. If the programs work as marketed, the politicians would enjoy higher valued pensions. But if the programs disappoint or even fail, their pensions would be reduced or even cancelled. Would these politicians still support billions in corporate handouts if their personal financial wellbeing was tied to the outcomes?

As the funding of private companies to develop the EV sector in Ontario continues with the support of taxpayer subsidies, Ontarians and all Canadians should consider the misalignment of economic incentives underpinning these subsidies and the practical challenges to the success of this industrial intervention.

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

Business

Latest shakedown attempt by Canada Post underscores need for privatization

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Jake Fuss

For the second time in just six months, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) is threatening strike action. As Canadians know all too well, postal strikes can be highly disruptive given the federal government provides Canada Post with a near-monopoly on letter mail across the country. CUPW is well aware of this and uses it to their advantage in negotiations. While CUPW has the right to ask for whatever they like, Canadians should finally be freed from this albatross.

In January, the Trudeau government loaned Canada Post a whopping $1.034 billion to help “maintain its solvency and continue operating.” Since 2018, Canada Post has lost more than $4.6 billion, and according to its latest financial update, lost more than $100 million in the first quarter of 2025 alone. Canadians are on the hook for these losses because the federal government owns Canada Post.

Salaries and other employee costs comprise more than 66 per cent of Canada Post’s expenses, and CUPW and Canada Post management both know they can simply pass any losses on to Canadians. Consequently, there’s less incentive for management to control the bottom line or make reasonable budget requests when negotiating with the government. But if the government privatizes Canada Post, it would impose a proper constraint on costs that doesn’t currently exist. This is only fair given there’s no compelling reason why Canadians should underwrite the inflation of salaries in a money-losing Crown corporation.

Of course, government ownership of Canada Post is archaic. When the organization was founded more than 250 years ago, the world was quite different. In today’s age of Amazon, a plethora of delivery services exist coast-to-coast that serve Canadian consumers. Other countries including the Netherlands, Austria and Germany long ago privatized their postal services. The result was increased competition, which in turn reduced prices and improved quality.

Alongside privatization, the federal government should also eliminate Canada Post’s near-monopoly status on letter mail. This policy is purportedly meant to ensure universal service. But in reality, it prohibits other potential service providers from entering the letter-delivery market (including in remote areas that may experience less Canada Post service post-privatization), deprives Canadians of choice, and crucially, reduces the incentive for Canada Post to improve its service.

Simply put, the federal government should focus on its core responsibilities, and delivering mail is clearly not one of them. Given Canada Post’s latest attempted shakedown of Canadians, it’s never been clearer that it’s time for Canada Post to go the way of Air Canada, de Havilland and CN Rail. Once upon a time, the federal government owned all three of these entities until it became clear there was no reason for the government to own an airline, build planes or deliver goods by train. Why is letter mail any different? Canadians deserve better.

Continue Reading

Business

Municipal government per-person spending in Canada hit near record levels

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Austin Thompson

Municipal government spending in Canada hit near record levels in recent years, finds a new study by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“In light of record-high spending in municipalities across Canada, residents should consider whether or not crime, homelessness, public transit and other services have actually improved,” said Austin Thompson, senior policy analyst at the Fraser Institute and author of The Expanding Finances of Local Governments in Canada.

From 2000 to 2023, per-person spending (inflation-adjusted) increased by 25.2 per cent, reaching a record-high $5,974 per person in 2021 before declining slightly to $5,851 in 2023, the latest year of available data.

During that same period, municipal government revenue—generated from property taxes and transfers from other levels of government—increased by 33.7 per cent per person (inflation-adjusted).

And yet, among all three levels of government including federal and provincial, municipal government spending (adjusted for inflation) has actually experienced the slowest rate of growth over the last 10 years, underscoring the large spikes in spending at all government levels across Canada.

“Despite claims from municipal policymakers about their dire financial positions, Canadians should understand the true state of finances at city hall so they can decide whether they’re getting good value for their money,” said Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute.

The Expanding Finances of Local Governments in Canada, 1990–2023

  • Canada’s local governments have experienced substantial fiscal growth in recent decades.
  • Revenue and expenditure by local governments—including municipal governments, school boards, and Indigenous governments—have increased faster than population growth and inflation combined. From 1990 to 2023, real per-capita revenue rose by 32.7%, and expenditure by 30.0%.
  • Local governments represent a significant component of Canada’s broader public sector. In 2023, net of inter-governmental transfers, municipal governments and school boards accounted for 18.6% of total government expenditure and 11.1% of revenue.
  • Despite this growth, local governments’ share of overall government revenue and expenditure has declined over time—especially since the COVID-19 pandemic—as federal and provincial budgets have expanded even more rapidly.
  • Nevertheless, between 2008 and 2023 the inflation-adjusted per-capita revenue of municipal governments in-creased by 10.1% and their expenditure by 12.4% , on average across the provinces.
  • Over the same period, municipal governments recorded above-inflation increases in their combined annual operating surpluses, which contributed to an 88.1% inflation-adjusted rise in their net worth—raising important questions about the allocation of accumulated resources.
  • In 2023, Ontario recorded the highest per-capita municipal revenue among the provinces ($4,156), while Alberta had the highest per-capita expenditure ($3,750). Prince Edward Island reported the lowest per-capita municipal revenue ($1,635) and expenditure ($1,186).
  • Wide variation in per-capita municipal revenue and expenditure across the provinces reflects differences in the responsibilities provinces assign to municipalities, as well as possible disparities in the efficiency of service delivery—issues that warrant further scrutiny.

Click Here To Read The Full Study

Continue Reading

Trending

X