From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss

Corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.

General Motors recently announced the temporary closure of its electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing plant in Ontario, laying off 500 people because its new EV isn’t selling. The plant will shut down for six months despite hundreds of millions in government subsides financed by taxpayers. This is just one more example of corporate welfare—when governments subsidize favoured industries and companies—and it’s time for the provinces and the next federal government to eliminate it.

Between the federal government and Ontario government, GM received about $500 million to help fund its EV transition. But this is just one example of corporate welfare in the auto sector. Stellantis and Volkswagen will receive about $28 billion in government subsidies while Honda is promised $5 billion.

More broadly, from 2007 to 2019, the last pre-COVID year of data, the federal government spent an estimated $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on corporate welfare while provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion. And crucially, these numbers exclude other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the actual cost of corporate welfare during this period was much higher.

Of course, politicians claim that corporate welfare benefits workers. Yet according to a significant body of research, corporate welfare fails to generate widespread economic benefit. Think of it this way—if the businesses that received subsidies were viable to begin with, they wouldn’t need government support. So unprofitable companies are kept in business through governments’ support, which can prevent resources, including investment and workers, from moving to profitable companies, hurting overall economic growth.

Put differently, rather than fuelling economic growth, corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.

Governments also must impose higher tax rates on everyone else to pay for corporate welfare. In turn, higher tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and business investment—again, which fuels economic growth. And the higher the tax rates, the more economic activity they discourage.

GM’s EV plant shut down once again proves that when governments try to engineer the economy with corporate welfare, workers will ultimately lose. It’s time for the provinces and the next federal government—whoever it may be—to finally put an end to this costly and ineffective policy approach.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

By Gage Haubrich

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing Canadians want the federal government to cut spending and shrink the size and cost of the bureaucracy.

“The poll shows most Canadians want the federal government to cut spending,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “Canadians know they pay too much tax because the government wastes too much money.”

Between 2019 and 2024, federal government spending increased 26 per cent even after accounting for inflation. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to federal government spending in the next five years. Results of the poll show:

• 43 per cent say reduce spending
• 20 per cent say increase spending
• 16 per cent say maintain spending
• 20 per cent don’t know

The federal government added 108,000 bureaucrats and increased the cost of the bureaucracy 73 per cent since 2016. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to the size and cost of the federal bureaucracy. Results of the poll show:

• 53 per cent say reduce
• 24 per cent say maintain
• 4 per cent say increase
• 19 per cent don’t know

Liberal Leader Mark Carney promised to “balance the operating budget in three years.” Leger asked Canadians if they believed Carney’s promise to balance the budget. Results of the poll show:

• 58 per cent are skeptical
• 32 per cent are confident
• 10 per cent don’t know

“Any politician that wants to fix the budget and cut taxes will need to shrink the size and cost of Ottawa’s bloated bureaucracy,” Haubrich said. “The polls show Canadians want to put the federal government on a diet and they won’t trust promises about balancing the budget unless politicians present credible plans.”