Scathing auditor general reports underscore political realities

Nearly 20 per cent of the SDTC projects examined by the AG were in fact ineligible (based on the government’s own rules) for funding, with a total price tag of $59 million. There were also 90 instances where the SDTC ignored conflict of interest provisions while awarding $76 million to various projects. Indeed, the AG found 63 cases where SDTC agency directors voted in favour of payments to companies in which they had declared interests.

If you needed more proof that the Trudeau government is misusing taxpayer money, the auditor general (AG) just released two scathing reports about improper contracting practices, conflict of interest, and funding provided for ineligible projects. Clearly, politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa do not always act in the best interest of Canadians.

According to the first AG report, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), the federal agency responsible for funding green technology projects, demonstrated “significant lapses… in governance and stewardship of public funds.” Nearly 20 per cent of the SDTC projects examined by the AG were in fact ineligible (based on the government’s own rules) for funding, with a total price tag of $59 million. There were also 90 instances where the SDTC ignored conflict of interest provisions while awarding $76 million to various projects. Indeed, the AG found 63 cases where SDTC agency directors voted in favour of payments to companies in which they had declared interests.

The second AG report focused on 97 contracts totalling $209 million awarded by the federal government to the McKinsey & Company consulting firm from 2011 to 2023. According to the AG, the government demonstrated “frequent disregard for procurement policies and guidance and that contracting practices often did not demonstrate value for money.” About 70 per cent of these contracts were awarded non-competitively—meaning no other companies were permitted to bid on the contracts.

These findings also follow an earlier report in February that found the federal government “repeatedly failed to follow good management practices in the contracting, development, and implementation” of the ArriveCAN mobile app, which cost Canadian taxpayers at least $59.5 million.

While the Trudeau government’s record-high levels of spending have made it clear that taxpayer money is being dished out left and right without much regard for the consequences for future generations of Canadians, the AG reports reveal chronic mismanagement, little accountability, and decision-makers acting in their own interests.

Government officials are handing huge sums of taxpayer money to people or companies who spend it without proper transparency or oversight. When considering these findings, Canadians should be skeptical of any politician or commentator who downplays government excesses or says we can’t reduce federal spending.

It’s also naïve to think that politicians and bureaucrats are benevolent civil servants who simply want to make the world a better place. In reality, like most people, they’re human beings motivated by self-interest.

James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1986, explained these concepts when pioneering a branch of economics called Public Choice Theory, which pays particular attention to the incentives policymakers face.

Politicians do not always act in the best interest of their constituents, and bureaucrats do not always act in the best interests of the public.

Why? Because it’s often in their interest to make decisions that benefit themselves, family members, friends or other cronies. If you decide to give money to companies despite a conflict of interest or if you award contracts to friends, you’re not making decisions in the best interest of society. People don’t suddenly become selfless when they enter the government sector. They respond to the same incentives as everyone else. The latest AG reports underscore this reality.

Author:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Canada Lawmakers Helped Foreign Powers Influence Elections, Report Alleges

Don't Miss

What’s next? With major projects wrapping up, what does Canada’s energy future hold

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

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Crime / 9 hours ago

‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer

Alberta / 13 hours ago

Carney government’s anti-oil sentiment no longer in doubt

Alberta

Carney government’s anti-oil sentiment no longer in doubt

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The Carney government, which on Monday survived a confidence vote in Parliament by the skin of its teeth, recently released a “second tranche of nation-building projects” blessed by the Major Projects Office. To have a chance to survive Canada’s otherwise oppressive regulatory gauntlet, projects must get on this Caesar-like-thumbs-up-thumbs-down list.

The first tranche of major projects released in September included no new oil pipelines but pertained largely to natural gas, nuclear power, mineral production, etc. The absence of proposed oil pipelines was not surprising, as Ottawa’s regulatory barricade on oil production means no sane private company would propose such a project. (The first tranche carries a price tag of $60 billion in government/private-sector spending.)

Now, the second tranche of projects also includes not a whiff of support for oil production, transport and export to non-U.S. markets. Again, not surprising as the prime minister has done nothing to lift the existing regulatory blockade on oil transport out of Alberta.

So, what’s on the latest list?

There’s a “conservation corridor” for British Columbia and Yukon; more LNG projects (both in B.C.); more mineral projects (nickel, graphite, tungsten—all electric vehicle battery constituents); and still more transmission for “clean energy”—again, mostly in B.C. And Nunavut comes out ahead with a new hydro project to power Iqaluit. (The second tranche carries a price tag of $58 billion in government/private-sector spending.)

No doubt many of these projects are worthy endeavours that shouldn’t require the imprimatur of the “Major Projects Office” to see the light of day, and merit development in the old-fashioned Canadian process where private-sector firms propose a project to Canada’s environmental regulators, get necessary and sufficient safety approval, and then build things.

However, new pipeline projects from Alberta would also easily stand on their own feet in that older regulatory regime based on necessary and sufficient safety approval, without the Carney government additionally deciding what is—or is not—important to the government, as opposed to the market, and without provincial governments and First Nations erecting endless barriers.

Regardless of how you value the various projects on the first two tranches, the second tranche makes it crystal clear (if it wasn’t already) that the Carney government will follow (or double down) on the Trudeau government’s plan to constrain oil production in Canada, particularly products derived from Alberta’s oilsands. There’s nary a mention that these products even exist in the government’s latest announcement, despite the fact that the oilsands are the world’s fourth-largest proven reserve of oil. This comes on the heels on the Carney government’s first proposed budget, which also reified the government’s fixation to extinguish greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, continue on the path to “net-zero 2050” and retain Canada’s all-EV new car future beginning in 2036.

It’s clear, at this point, that the Carney government is committed to the policies of the previous Liberal government, has little interest in harnessing the economic value of Canada’s oil holdings nor the potential global influence Canada might exert by exporting its oil products to Asia, Europe and other points abroad. This policy fixation will come at a significant cost to future generations of Canadians.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta on right path to better health care

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

Alberta’s health-care system may be set for another positive move away from the failed Canadian model. According to leaked draft legislation by the Smith government, Albertans may soon be able to access physician care in a parallel private sector, with physicians permitted to work in both the public and private systems.

The defenders of the status quo were of course quick to frame the approach as unique in Canada, arguing it would harm our universal system. While this potential change may put Alberta’s policies at odds with those of other provinces, it would more closely align with universal health-care systems everywhere else in the developed world. And most importantly, it will make for better access to health care for all Albertans.

First, it’s important recognize just how unusual Canada’s approach to privately-funded health care is compared to other high-income countries with universal health care.

In every one of the 30 other developed countries with universal health care, patients are free to seek services on their own terms with their own resources when the universal system is unwilling or unable to satisfy their needs. One reason may be to avoid long waiting lists, while others simply want to receive more personalized health-care services, meet a personal health need or access newer medical technologies and procedures.

In the majority of these countries, including those with high-performing systems such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Australia, physicians are also permitted to work in both the public and private sectors.

Canada’s deviation, and Alberta’s, from this international norm has not served patients well. Despite having the highest health spending among the provinces in one of the most expensive universal health-care systems in the developed world, Albertans endure some of the worst access to health care and wait in some of the longest queues for treatment.

A central explanation for why Canadians spend more and get much much less is the lack of a private competitive alternative to the universal public system.

Again, a private option gives patients an option to select care the government is unwilling to provide, either in terms of timeliness or in ways that may be personally important to them. Faster access could allow some people to expedite a return to work and support their family, or to re-engage in important activities without needing to leave the province or the country as they currently must.

By moving people willing to pay for services out of the public queues, the government can help reduce the wait times for patients in the public queues. It’s not surprising that Canada has the longest waiting lists in the developed world given we’re the only country that prohibits privately-funded health care.

Arguments that the private sector will starve the public system of resources (including doctors and nurses) misunderstand what’s actually happening in Alberta today.

Currently, surgeons spend a good deal of time waiting for access to operating rooms or hospital beds for patients. Meanwhile, nurses are leaving the profession in large numbers. Canada also has unemployed medical specialists who could be employed if new opportunities arose. Allowing private access to care or previously unavailable medical resources would increase the total volume of services available to Albertans.

Even beyond this, the opportunity to earn more by working extra hours in a private clinic could encourage physicians to use some of their now non-working hours to treat patients privately. In this regard, the focus on allowing physicians to work in both public and private sectors is a well-informed policy choice that makes better use of Alberta’s existing medical workforce.

Finally, a private parallel option creates incentives for better service in the universal system through competition. Shackling patients to a government monopoly with no alternative choices results in a more expensive system and lower standard of care than would be available otherwise. When no one is permitted to deliver timelier patient-focused care, there’s no pressure created to do so anywhere else in the system. The outcome is obvious just from looking at how poorly the public system in Alberta performs despite its world-class price tag.

While this new leaked draft legislation may have the defenders of the status quo frantically racing to defend the current Canadian model, it promises a better health-care system for Albertans. This change will more closely align Alberta’s policies with those of every other universal health-care country in the developed world. More importantly, it will improve access to health care for all Albertans, and provide Albertans currently stuck with poor service an option to choose differently for themselves without a plane ticket.