Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

Taxpayers Federation: Canada’s largest city overpaying for construction $350 million a year

Published

5 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Jay Goldberg 

Favouring unions costs taxpayers dearly

They say less is more, especially when it comes to budgeting. Apparently, Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow never got the memo.

Canada’s largest city keeps overpaying on construction projects, to the tune of $350 million a year. The reason, in many cases, is that only union-affiliated firms need apply.

With modest construction contracting reform, Toronto could save a bundle and see property taxes frozen for 2025.

Over the past two years, Toronto politicians voted to increase property taxes by a whopping 18 per cent. Last year’s increase alone was 9.5 per cent.

Because of these massive property tax increases, many families were pushed to the brink.

Property tax bills for most Torontonians soared by hundreds of dollars over the past two years.

Yet so much of this pain could have been avoided with a little common-sense policymaking.

Would you refuse to even consider quotes from a non-unionized company? Or would you get quotes from everyone and then make your decision?

To nearly everyone on the planet other than Toronto’s zany politicians, the choice is obvious.

But when you’re a Toronto politician spending other people’s money, apparently open competition to find the best deal isn’t a priority.

Right now, Toronto uses a closed-tendering approach to award contracts for some of the city’s most expensive construction projects. That means only a handful of companies associated with a small group of unions can bid on those jobs.

Cardus, a non-partisan thinktank, released a report last year projecting Toronto was poised to award $1.7 billion in construction projects through a closed tendering process in 2023. Because Toronto only allows a small number of unionized construction companies to bid on those jobs, the cost goes up.

In fact, Cardus estimated Toronto taxpayers were set to overpay on construction projects in 2023 to the tune of $350 million due to a lack of competition.

Closed tendering used to be the norm in Ontario. Every city across the province overpaid on construction projects to cater to big unions.

That all changed in 2019, when the Ford government passed legislation allowing municipalities to open up the construction contracting process to real competition.

Sadly, Toronto has thus far chosen not to take advantage of the Ford government’s legislative reforms to save a boatload of cash.

But nearby cities sure have.

Consider the example of Hamilton.

Hamilton was one of the first cities in Ontario to take advantage of the Ford government’s reforms. Cardus estimates Hamilton is saving 21 per cent on its construction projects because the city opened up its contracting process. This single reform did a great deal to improve the city’s bottom line.

Yet Toronto politicians appear stuck in the past. During last year’s mayoral by-election, only two candidates, Councillor Brad Bradford and Anthony Furey, pledged to follow Hamilton in reforming construction contracts.

There has been no indication from Chow, who won that by-election, that this common-sense reform is even on the table.

Last year, Chow and council increased property taxes by 9.5 per cent, the highest property tax hike in Toronto’s history.

Had Chow implemented construction reform and saved the $350 million Cardus pointed to, last year’s property tax increase could have been wiped out entirely.

Think about that. Chow had a choice: save money through competitive bidding or hammer taxpayers with a huge tax hike.

The mayor picked the tax hike.

To break the cycle of massive property tax hikes, it’s high time Toronto looked at construction contract reform.

Taxpayers shouldn’t put up with politicians overpaying on construction contracts to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, only to see those same politicians turn around and impose record property tax hikes.

This isn’t just a problem restricted to Toronto: taxpayers from British Columbia to Quebec themselves face similar anti-competitive policies at the provincial level.

It’s time for politicians to put taxpayers, not unions, first.

Chow should implement common-sense construction contracting reforms to head off a massive property tax increase in 2025.

Before Post

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

More from this author

Business

Trump eyes end of capital gains tax in 2025

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

In a historic announcement that rattled markets and reignited debate over tax policy, President Donald Trump revealed plans to eliminate the capital gains tax starting in 2025. The unprecedented move would allow Americans to retain all profits from asset sales—whether in stocks, real estate, or other investments. Supporters tout it as a bold pro-growth measure, while critics warn it may cause budget strain and market instability.

Key Details:

  • President Trump announced the elimination of capital gains tax effective 2025, describing it as a move to reward success and promote wealth-building.

  • Currently, capital gains are taxed at rates up to 20%, with additional surcharges for high earners.

  • The announcement caused a major rally across financial markets, though critics claim the change favors the wealthy and could disrupt the economy.

Diving Deeper:

At a press conference on Monday, President Trump laid out a sweeping proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax in its entirety, calling it a “long-overdue correction” to what he described as a punitive tax on prosperity. “Why should you be punished for building wealth?” he asked. “This is America—we reward success.” If enacted, the change would allow investors to retain 100% of profits from the sale of assets such as stocks, homes, and businesses, with zero tax liability.

This proposal marks a sharp departure from decades of entrenched U.S. tax policy. Currently, long-term capital gains are taxed at rates ranging from 0% to 20%, with potential surcharges including the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax for high earners. Trump’s plan would zero out those liabilities entirely starting in the 2025 tax year.

Conservative economists and market analysts have lauded the move as potentially the most transformative supply-side reform since the Reagan era. They argue that removing the tax will unshackle trillions of dollars currently locked in unrealized gains, spurring investment, entrepreneurship, and broader economic dynamism. “This is a game-changer,” said one pro-growth advocate. “It sends a clear message that America is back to being the most investment-friendly nation on Earth.”

Predictably, left-wing critics erupted. One Democratic senator labeled the measure a “grenade” that would detonate the federal budget and widen the wealth gap. Others warned of asset bubbles and increased volatility as investors rush to dump assets ahead of the reform’s implementation. These concerns, however, do not seem to have spooked the markets—at least not yet.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped nearly 600 points following the announcement, while cryptocurrencies surged on expectations of tax-free gains. Real estate portals and trading platforms like Robinhood and E*TRADE saw surges in activity as users began strategizing around the policy’s timing. Online, the announcement triggered a wave of memes and commentary. The hashtag #NoCapGains began trending on X (formerly Twitter), with some calling it a “wealth liberation act” and others denouncing it as “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Legislation to formalize the proposal is expected to hit Congress within weeks. While Republicans have largely expressed support, Democrats are preparing for a fierce battle. It’s unclear whether some establishment Republicans—many of whom have been resistant to bold reform under Trump—will help move the bill forward or slow-walk it in favor of more moderate compromises.

Until the law is officially passed, financial advisors are urging caution. “The promise of zero capital gains tax is tempting,” one planner said, “but don’t bet the farm until it’s signed, sealed, and delivered.”

Still, with the 2025 tax season approaching fast, the stakes are enormous. If passed, Trump’s plan would not only mark one of the most dramatic tax overhauls in modern history—it would redefine the very incentives that drive American investment and wealth accumulation.

Continue Reading

Business

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Published on

Offshore drilling rig Development Driller III at the Deepwater Horizon site May, 2010. 

From The Center Square

By 

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

A $744 million jury verdict in Louisiana is at the center of a coordinated legal effort to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to ameliorate the erosion of land in Louisiana, offset climate change and more.

Proponents say the payments are overdue, but critics say the lawsuits will hike energy costs for all Americans and are wrongly supplanting the state and federal regulatory framework already in place.

In the Louisiana case in question, Plaquemines Parish sued Chevron alleging that oil exploration off the coast decades ago led to the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

A jury ruled Friday that Chevron must pay $744 million in damages.

The Louisiana case is just one of dozens of environmental cases around the country that could have a dramatic – and costly – impact on American energy consumers.

While each environmental case has its own legal nuances and differing arguments, the lawsuits are usually backed by one of a handful of the same law firms that have partnered with local and state governments. In Louisiana, attorney John Carmouche has led the charge.

“If somebody causes harm, fix it,” Carmouche said to open his arguments.

Environmental arguments of this nature have struggled to succeed in federal courts, but they hope for better luck in state courts, as the Louisiana case was.

Those damages for exploration come as President Donald Trump is urging greater domestic oil production in the U.S. to help lower energy costs for Americans.

Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, told The Center Square that the Louisiana case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Chevron is expected to appeal.

“So the issue at play here is a question about coastal erosion, about legal liability and about the proper role of the courts versus state government or federal government in enforcing regulation and statute,” Erspamer said.

Another question in the case is whether companies can be held accountable for actions they carried out before regulations were passed restricting them.

“There are now well more than 40 different lawsuits targeting over 200 different companies,” Erspamer said.

The funds would purportedly be used for coastal restoration and a kind of environmental credit system, though critics say safeguards are not in place to make sure the money would actually be used as stated.

While coastal erosion cases appear restricted to Louisiana, similar cases have popped up around the U.S. in the last 10 to 15 years.

Following a similar pattern, local and state governments have partnered with law firms to sue oil producers for large sums to help offset what they say are the effects of climate change, as The Center Square previously reported.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, Bucks County sued a handful of energy companies, calling for large abatement payments to offset the effects of climate change.

“There are all kinds of problems with traceability, causation and allocability,” George Mason University Professor Donald Kochan told The Center Square, pointing out the difficulty of proving specific companies are to blame when emissions occur all over the globe, with China emitting far more than the U.S.

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

Those cases are in earlier stages and face more significant legal hurdles because of questions about whether plaintiffs can justify the cases on federal common law because it is difficult to prove than any one individual has been substantively and directly harmed by climate change.

On top of that, plaintiffs must also prove that emissions released by the particular oil companies are responsible for the damage done, which is complicated by the fact that emissions all over the world affect the environment, the majority of which originate outside the U.S.

“It’s not that far afield from the same kinds of lawsuits we’ve seen in California and New York and other places that more are on the emissions and global warming side rather than the sort of dredging and exploration side,” Erspamer said.

But environmental companies argue that oil companies must fork out huge settlements to pay for environmental repairs.

For now, the Louisiana ruling is a shot across the bow in the legal war against energy companies in the U.S.

Whether the appeal is successful or other lawsuits have the same impact remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Trending

X