From Newfoundland’s Muskrat Falls hydro project, to Ottawa’s Firearms Registry and the Phoenix pay system, to Montreal’s 1976 Olympics, Canada is a gold medal winner when it comes to wasting tax payer dollars. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Last year, Bent Flyvbjerg, a Danish professor of economic geography specializing in megaprojects, and Canadian journalist Dan Gardner co-authored a book How Big Things Get Done. They investigate what they coin the “Iron Law of Megaprojects,” which holds they routinely come in well over budget, far past projected deadlines, and without the projected benefits.
Unfortunately for taxpayers, the book contains numerous examples of Canadian megaprojects that follow this Law of Megaprojects. The federal government’s infamous firearms registry is a textbook template for how IT projects can go terribly wrong, ending up 590 per cent over budget. The Muskrat Falls hydro project in Newfoundland is cited as a classic demonstration of what happens when hiring a firm with little direct experience managing such a large complex project. Most famously, the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games wins the title for the largest cost overrun in Olympic history, finishing 720 per cent over budget. The authors suggest Montreal’s “Big Owe” stadium “should be considered the unofficial mascot of the modern Olympic Games.”
One thing all these Canadian examples have in common is extensive government involvement. Not that governments learned from their past mistakes. The federal government’s Phoenix pay system fiasco demonstrates that IT remains a black hole, with the government recently announcing it would abandon Phoenix after spending $3.5 billion trying to implement it. Several light train projects across the country have gone off the rails, the poster boy being the system in Ottawa, which is years behind schedule and already $2.5 billion over budget.
There are several reasons why government projects are chronically prone to failure. One is that politicians, especially late in their careers, want legacies in the form of monumental tangible projects irrespective of whether they effectively meet a public need. You can see this dynamic clearly at work today in Canada, as the Trudeau government pushes for a prohibitively expensive (probably more than $100 billion) high-speed rail connection between Windsor and Quebec City. Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Doug Ford promotes a traffic tunnel underneath Highway 401 between Brampton and Scarborough, and Quebec Premier Francois Legault revives plans for a third link connecting Quebec City to the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. While Canada clearly needs more transportation infrastructure, these projects are not the most cost-effective way of meeting the needs of commuters.
Governments deceptively deploy several tricks to help get uneconomic projects built. They routinely produce unrealistically low-cost estimates to make wasteful ego-driven projects appear affordable. Another tried and true tactic is to just “start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in,” as former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown admitted. This approach preys on the mistaken belief that large sunk costs mean scrapping a project “would be interpreted by the public as ‘throwing away’ the billions of dollars already spent” when it is actually a textbook example of throwing good money after bad.
Unlike other studies of how major infrastructure projects typically are over budget, Flyvbjerg and Gardner have some concrete recommendations on how to manage large projects that respect deadlines and budgets.
These steps include careful consideration of the actual goals of the project (airlines can meet the need for fast transport in the Windsor-Quebec corridor without the expense of high-speed rail), detailed planning and preparation followed by swift execution to minimize costly surprises (summarized by their advice to “think slow, act fast”), accounting for the cost of similar projects in the past, and breaking large projects into smaller modules to allow projects to scale back when they run into trouble. A good example of these principles at work in Canada were several oilsands projects built before 2015, when severe shortages were addressed by firms using modularity and synchronizing their work schedules to free up scarce labour and materials.
However, one major flaw in Flyvbjerg and Gardner’s analysis is their failure to understand the economics of renewable energy. They cite solar and wind projects as examples of projects that routinely finish under budget, a major factor in their declining cost. But building renewable energy is not their only cost to the energy grid, as back-up plants must be maintained for those periods when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing, as noted in a recent article by Bjorn Lomborg. The expense of maintaining plants that often are idle raises overall costs. This is why jurisdictions that rely extensively on renewable energy, such as Germany and California, have high energy costs that must be paid either by customers or taxpayers.
However, apart from this mistake, there is much governments and taxpayers can learn from How Big Things Get Done.
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.
Parents should take precaution this holiday season when it comes to artificial intelligence toys after researchers for the new Trouble in Toyland report found safety concerns.
Illinois Public Interest Research Group Campaign Associate Ellen Hengesbach said some of the toys armed with AI raised red flags ranging from toys that talk in-depth about sexually explicit topics to acting dismayed when the child disengages.
“What they look like are basically stuffed animals or toy robots that have a chatbot like Chat GPT embedded in them and can have conversations with children,” Hengesbach told The Center Square.
The U.S. PIRG Education Fund report also points out that at least three toys have limited to no parental controls and have the capacity to record your child’s voice and collect other sensitive data via facial recognition.
“All three were willing to tell us where to find potentially dangerous objects in the house, such as plastic bags, matches, or knives,” she said. “It seems like dystopian science fiction decades ago is now reality.”
In the face of all the changing landscape and rising concerns, Hengesbach is calling for immediate action.
“The two main things that we’d like to see are more oversight in general and more research so we can see exactly how these toys interact with kids, really just identify what the harms might be and have a lot more transparency from companies around how are these toys designed,” she said. “What are they capable of and what the potential risks or harms might be. I just really want us to take this opportunity to really think through what we’re doing instead of rushing a toy to market.”
As for the here and now, Hengesbach stressed parents would be wise to be thoughtful about their purchases.
“We just have a big open question of what are the long-term impacts of these products on young kids, especially when it comes to their social development,” she said. “The fact is that we just really won’t know what the long-term impacts of AI friends and companion toys might be until the first generation playing with them grows up. For now, I think it’s just really important that parents understand that these AI toys are out there; they’re very new and they’re basically unregulated.”
Since the release of the report, Hengesbach said one AI toymaker temporarily suspended sales of all their products to conduct a safety audit.
This year’s 40th Trouble in Toyland report also focuses on toys that contain toxins, counterfeit toys that haven’t been tested for safety, recalled toys and toys that contain button cell batteries or high-powered magnets, both of which can be deadly if swallowed.
Generous social programs come with trade-offs. Pretending otherwise is political fiction
Nordic societies fund their own benefits through taxes and cost-sharing. Canadians expect someone to foot the bill
Like Donald Trump, one of my favourite words starts with the letter “T.” But where Trump likes the word “tariff,” my choice is “trade-off.” Virtually everything in life is a trade-off, and we’d all be much better off if we instinctively understood that.
Think about it.
If you yield to the immediate pleasure of spending all your money on whatever catches your fancy, you’ll wind up broke. If you regularly enjoy drinking to excess, be prepared to pay the unpleasant price of hangovers and maybe worse. If you don’t bother to acquire some marketable skill or credential, don’t be surprised if your employment prospects are limited. If you succumb to the allure of fooling around, you may well lose your marriage. And so on.
Failing to understand trade-offs also extends into political life. Take, for instance, the current fashion for anti-capitalist democratic socialism. Pushed to explain their vision, proponents will often make reference to the Nordic countries. But they exhibit little or no understanding of how these societies actually work.
As American economist Deirdre Nansen McCloskey notes, “Sweden is pretty much as ‘capitalistic’ as is the United States. If ‘socialism’ means government ownership of the means of production, which is the classic definition, Sweden never qualified.” The central planning/government ownership model isn’t the Swedish way.
What the Nordics do have, however, is a robust social safety net. And it’s useful to look at how they pay for it.
J.P. Morgan’s Michael Cembalest is a man who knows his way around data. He puts it this way: “Copy the Nordic model if you like, but understand that it entails a lot of capitalism and pro-business policies, a lot of taxation on middle-class spending and wages, minimal reliance on corporate taxation and plenty of co-pays and deductibles in its health care system.”
For instance, take the kind of taxes that are often derided as undesirably regressive—sales taxes, social security taxes and payroll taxes. In Sweden, they account for a whopping 27 per cent of gross domestic product. And some 15 per cent of health expenditures are out of pocket.
Charles Lane—formerly with the Washington Post, now with The Free Press—is another who pulls no punches: “Nordic countries are generous, but they are not stupid. They understand there is no such thing as ‘free’ health care, and that requiring patients to have at least some skin in the game, in the form of cost-sharing, helps contain costs.”
In effect, Nordic societies have made an internal bargain. Ordinary people are prepared to fork over large chunks of their own money in return for a comprehensive social safety net. They’re not expecting the good stuff to come to them without a personal cost.
Scandinavians obviously understand the concept of trade-offs, a dimension that seems to be absent from much of the North American discussion. Instead of Nordic-style pragmatism, spending ideas on this side of the Atlantic are floated on the premise of having someone else pay. And the electorally prized middle class is to be protected at all costs.
In the aftermath of Zohran Mamdami’s New York City win, journalist Kevin Williamson had a sobering reality check: “Class warfare isn’t how they roll in Scandinavia. Oslo is a terrific place to be a billionaire—Copenhagen and Stockholm, too … what’s radically different about the Scandinavians is not how they tax the very high-income but how they tax the middle.”
Taxation propensities aside, Nordic societies are different from the United States and Canada.
Denmark, for instance, is very much a “high-trust” society, defined as a place “where interpersonal trust is relatively high and ethical values are strongly shared.” It’s often been said that it works the way it does because it’s full of Danes, which is broadly true—albeit less so than it was 40 years ago.
Denmark, though, has no interest in multiculturalism as we’ve come to know it. Although governed from the centre-left, there’s no state-sponsored focus on systemic discrimination or diversity representation. Instead, the emphasis is on social cohesion and conformity. If you want to create a society like Denmark, it helps to understand the dynamics that make it work.
Reality intrudes on all sorts of other issues. For example, there’s the way in which public discourse is disfigured on the question of climate change and the need to pursue aggressive net-zero policies.
Asked in the abstract, people are generally favourable, which is then touted as evidence of strong public support. But when subsequently asked how much they’re personally prepared to pay to accomplish these ambitious goals, the answer is often little or nothing.
If there’s one maxim we should be taught from childhood, it’s this: there are no panaceas, only trade-offs.
Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
