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

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

When a conservative reporter asked Mark Carney how many genders there are and the prime minister gave an evasive answer, liberal journalists considered the question inappropriate because they want to control the narrative.

By any traditional journalistic standard, the reconstitution of reality by transgender ideology is one of the biggest stories of our generation. Indeed, in the middle of the Canadian election campaign, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “transwomen” are not women, triggering a massive backlash from the transgender movement and widespread celebration from those still possessed of common sense. 

In Canada, however, the press — with the exception of the National Post and several independent outlets — has more or less collectively agreed to ignore the topic and to treat the matter as if it is settled. The mainstream broadsheets simply assume the validity of gender ideology and the social victory of the transgender movement regardless of the debates raging across the Western world. 

Thus, when Alex Zoltan of Juno News managed to ask Prime Minister Mark Carney a question after the French debate, he touched a topic the rest of the media was avoiding like the plague: “How many genders are there?” 

This is obviously a relevant question, with direct relevance to government policy. Current government guidelines state that gender is distinct from sex, and the Trudeau government introduced a non-binary gender option (“X”) for passports and other federal documents. Government missives have consistently referred to recently invented identities such as “two-spirit,” and last year Justin Trudeau explicitly stated that “transwomen are women” — on International Women’s Day (the UK Supreme Court disagrees). 

Zoltan’s question was simple: “How many genders are there?” 

In Mark Carney's Canada, stopping men from going into women's rape shelters is only a "general objective." pic.twitter.com/qJNqaBMUpt

— Alex Zoltan (@AmazingZoltan) April 20, 2025

Carney was uncomfortable but obviously prepared for the question. “Uhhhh … in terms of sex, there are two. Thank you.” 

Zoltan: “My follow-up question then. Do you believe that women, biological women, have the right to their own spaces, their own sports, their own changerooms, their own prisons, their own homeless shelters?” 

Here, Carney vacillated. The policy of the Trudeau government has been to segregate based on “gender” rather than biological sex. “This is Canada,” Carney stated obviously. “Um, and, um, ah, as a general objective, yes, but we work where we value all Canadians for who they are and we’ll continue to do so. Thank you very much.” In short: Carney performed a neat, albeit stumbling, pivot. He affirmed two sexes — as Pierre Poilievre has — but also appeared to affirm the Trudeau government’s transgender policies. 

It is safe to assume that Carney, who has an adult daughter who identifies as non-binary, will not roll back any of Trudeau’s transgender policies, although he will likely be less performative about his LGBT activism. But what was as notable as his response to the question was the Canadian establishment’s reaction. Despite the fact that Zoltan’s question was incredibly relevant, they immediately responded as if only a fringe extremist would bother to touch on an issue so miniscule as the radical overhaul of our laws by a radical movement. 

From the CBC: 

True North dared ask Mark Carney if women deserve sex-based spaces, and the establishment is LIVID.

CBC cries it’s “unrelated to the debate.” 😢

They are desperate to control the narrative AND big cowards for not asking such a basic question already.pic.twitter.com/AhZmbKFlvE

— Cosmin Dzsurdzsa (@cosminDZS) April 17, 2025

The CBC complained that the topic was “unrelated to the debate.” Of course, the mainstream press has appointed itself the gatekeepers of which topics get covered, and transgender ideology has been ruled off-limits — which is why the state broadcaster would not even cover the UK’s Cass Review, which condemned the “gender-affirming care” so enthusiastically defended by the CBC and other outlets. 

Journalist Wyatt Sharpe claimed the question was “American,” somehow — as if Canada has not been out front on these issues: “How many Canadians genuinely care about ‘how many genders there are?’… that is the type of American culture war style question that True North, Rebel, etc were hoping to cause Mr. Carney to not be able to answer. He answered it fine, and that’s why True North and Rebel haven’t been posting the question like they usually would across social media.” 

The quintessential response came from David Beaudoin: “True North finally makes it on prime time.  We’re in a trade war with the U.S. The economy is in peril. Here is a world-renowned economist running for Prime Minister. Time to show Canadians you’re a serious news outlet. ‘How many genders are there?’” 

The message is clear. Men in women’s prisons? Men in female spaces? Women getting sexually assaulted by men in women’s shelters? Girls getting double mastectomies? Children getting socially transitioned by public schools without the knowledge of their parents, an issue taken up by several provinces (one of which used the notwithstanding clause to stop it)? The mainstream press has ruled from on high: Not real issues.

So, to all the women and girls and parents concerned about these issues: Shut up, they explained. 

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.