Hospital staffing in Ontario is in crisis – as it is in Alberta, British Columbia, and the rest of Canada. Provinces are responding with what they perceive as solutions: Ontario is fast-tracking foreign-trained nurses, and Alberta has made the interprovincial movement of professionals easier. But while these moves will help reduce the red tape surrounding the practice of health professionals, there are also other solutions to consider. For starters, capacity issues in Canadian health care aren’t new nor entirely attributable to COVID-19. Canada has had a deficiency for years compared to other OECD countries. For instance, in 2019, the number of doctors in Canada was 2.8 per 1,000 inhabitants, compared to 4.3 in Sweden. With below-OECD average numbers and increasing proportions of Canadians scrambling to find a family doctor, ending medical school quotas is a must. Next, we should make more efficient use of other existing health care resources, like permitting the participation of private facilities in the provision of care, and also allowing other medical professionals to exercise their full scope of practice. Delegating certain procedures to nurse practitioners or pharmacists will free doctors to treat more complex cases and take on new patients. While this doesn’t necessarily help when provinces are experiencing a simultaneous nursing shortage, there is an ample supply of pharmacists who can take on tasks like prescribing certain medications, ordering and interpreting lab tests, and administering vaccinations. Canada actually has more licensed pharmacists per capita than most OECD countries. More broadly, additional structural changes are needed to increase the health care system’s capacity. Sweden and the U.K. both underwent liberalization to mixed systems that embrace the value of parallel resources, notably private ones, while also maintaining universality. While not perfect, these two systems experienced improved access and quality of care for patients, and both outperformed Canada’s system with a similar price tag. Take, for instance, the management of hospitals. Does this really need to be a responsibility of the public sector? The expansion of the bureaucratic and administrative components of health care has undoubtedly led to a deterioration in outcomes. Sweden, on the other hand, allows private entrepreneurs to run hospitals financed by the public health care system that cost the public system less and are more efficient. In addition, a 2021 IPSOS poll showed that 59 per cent of Canadians would be in favour of following this model. And contrary to popular belief, this isn’t outlawed by the Canada Health Act, so provincial governments have the latitude to act. Canadian hospitals should also transition away from global budgets. Most high-performing universal health care systems utilize some sort of activity-based funding model to remunerate hospitals. Countries that make widespread use of activity-based financing tend to see an increased number of services performed and reduced wait times. In the U.K., transitioning to activity-based funding resulted in competition between institutions as the money now follows the patient. This increased efficiency and performance and led to cost savings for hospitals.

We are now at a point where dumping more money into the system is like bailing out a yacht with a bucket with a hole in the bottom. More money won’t solve the systemic, pervasive, and structural issues that plague Canadian health care.

For instance, Ontario has increased health spending by nearly 23 per cent since 2018, and Alberta in 2018 spent more per capita than Sweden or the U.K on health care. In 2021, a majority of Canadians agreed that the rate of increase in health care spending is unsustainable.

While hospital closures and staffing crises are alarming, they are not new and are not entirely COVID-related. If our decision-makers don’t start to think bigger and bolder when it comes to reform, we will still be having this same conversation years down the road.

Krystle Wittevrongel is a Senior Policy Analyst and Alberta Project Lead at the Montreal Economic Institute.

Stuart Trew
Troy Media
 
Canada’s auto sector got a boost this week – from U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration. Will we be good neighbours and return the favour?
 
After a marathon voting session, the U.S. Senate finally passed a slimmed-down version of Biden’s landmark climate and economic renewal legislation. The U.S. House of Representatives is set to okay the bill on Friday.
 
The Inflation Reduction Act, as it’s now known, pumps billions of dollars into renewable energy and ‘clean’ technology manufacturing to help the U.S. catch up with global competition while lowering carbon emissions. Any uptick in these sectors south of the border will naturally benefit the highly-integrated Canadian economy.
 
In one critical area – electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing – Biden’s new law will have significant spinoff benefits for Canada and Mexico. Could we be seeing the dawn of a buy-North-American mentality in Washington?
 
You might remember that an earlier version of Biden’s industrial strategy would have given consumers several new tax credits, on top of a base US$7,500, if their newly-purchased EV was assembled in the U.S., had a U.S.-built battery and was made in a union factory.
 
Using tax credits to favour domestic manufacturing and unionized auto jobs was courageous, but the idea drew pushback from Democrats representing non-union automakers like Toyota and Tesla.
 
Canadians panicked when they noticed that, starting in 2026, the total US$12,500 credit would be available exclusively for EVs assembled in the U.S.
 
Why would anyone build new electric cars and trucks in Canada if it meant those vehicles would be US$12,500 more expensive than American-made cars sold on the U.S. market?
 
So it was a huge relief when these buy-American conditions were stripped from a compromise bill pitched by Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer in late July. The policy now requires qualifying EVs to be assembled anywhere in North America, and with substantial North American content in components and critical minerals.
 
Canadian government officials and auto sector leaders claimed victory for their months of lobbying against the earlier EV credit. Instead of patting ourselves on the back, Canada should get to work synchronizing its various EV credits with those in the U.S. – just as the prime minister promised we would do in December.
 
“There are a number of solutions we’ve put forward,” said Justin Trudeau. “One of them would be to align our incentives in Canada and in the United States, to make sure that there is no slippage or no unfair advantages on one side or the other. We are happy to do that.”
 
Currently, federal credits of up to $5,000 are available to consumers purchasing a long list of qualifying EVs. These are topped up in several provinces by additional credits of $1,000 to $5,000. The goal of these credits, which can be claimed to purchase popular European, Korean and Japanese EVs, is simply to speed up the adoption of electric cars and trucks to help lower carbon emissions.
 
A buy-North-American condition on Canadian EV credits would reinforce the U.S. incentive for firms to invest in domestic technology, manufacturing and jobs. The emissions reduction benefits would be the same as they are under Canada’s non-discriminating credit, but the benefits to workers would be much greater – which will increase public support for decarbonization.
 
The Biden administration has done Canada a solid with its buy-North-American awakening. We would help ourselves by reciprocating that policy here.
 
Stuart Trew is director of the Trade and Investment Research Project at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Joseph Quesnel
Troy Media

Ottawa needs to finally declare through legislation that the Trans Mountain Expansion Project is to the national advantage of Canada.

Doing so would prove to the Canadian public and Indigenous communities that the federal government is serious about seeing it completed.

Make no mistake, killing the project would be devastating for many Indigenous communities along the corridor.

The matter becomes more pressing given the recent report on the project by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO). The PBO determined that the net present value of the pipeline is negative $600 million, leaving it worth about $1.2 billion less than the PBO’s estimate in December 2020. Added costs have also pushed the project’s completion date to the third quarter of 2023.

The PBO also found that cancelling the project would result in a significant loss to the federal government, forcing a write-off of $14.4 billion in assets.

Ottawa has stated it has no plans to cancel the multi-billion-dollar project, yet it could be easy to now hide behind these cost overruns and abort the whole thing. Given the anti-energy bias of this government, that is not impossible to imagine.

We also know there are environmental activists who are conducting a targeted campaign to kill Trans Mountain, now going after investors and insurers. It is critical the government formally defend the pipeline.

The 1,150-km Trans Mountain pipeline carries about 300,000 barrels of oil per day and is the only export pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia coast. The expansion will increase capacity to about 890,000 barrels per day.

The ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how dependent many European countries are on Russian oil and natural gas imports. Ottawa’s professed commitment to help NATO allies has finally turned our government’s head to the importance of energy security globally.

But even before the growing global energy crisis, the federal government should have declared through legislation that the Trans Mountain Expansion is to the general advantage of Canada. Particularly because of its importance to Indigenous communities.

The facts speak for themselves. To date, Trans Mountain says it has signed 69 agreements with Indigenous groups in B.C. and Alberta that represent more than $600 million in benefits and opportunities.

This includes training programs for community members, financial compensation, environmental commitments and legacy projects that will last beyond construction, such as projects developing yards that can later be used for housing, schools, soccer fields, or the establishment of a business such as a roadside restaurant or gas station.

The company has stated that, so far, more than 2,500 Indigenous workers have worked on the project, representing 11 per cent of the entire workforce.

A vast network of Indigenous-owned and joint venture businesses are participating. So far, more than $3.2 billion has been awarded to Indigenous firms in more than 4,700 contracts.

The Trans Mountain Expansion has also engaged the interest of multiple Indigenous groups – like Nesika Services, Project Reconciliation, and Chinook Pathways – that have come together seeking equity ownership stakes in the project.

These partnerships represent the maturing of Indigenous capital. Strategically dumping Trans Mountain would let these Indigenous groups down and undermine the confidence of Indigenous communities in their ability to work with the federal government on resource projects.

The federal government’s fixation on undermining the energy sector at every turn and its flawed “Just Transition” plan makes it more likely it could abandon the project if conditions were right.

In June, a spokesperson for Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland stated the project remains in the national interest.

But in 2018, Alberta Senator Douglas Black introduced legislation to formally declare Trans Mountain in the national interest, which would protect the project from disruptions and ensure its completion. However, the Trudeau government allowed that bill to die in the House.

Ottawa must bring in similar legislation and, for the sake of energy security and Indigenous prosperity, ensure the Trans Mountain Expansion gets built now more than ever.

Joseph Quesnel is a Nova Scotia-based consultant with the Canadian Energy Centre who is Quebec Metis by heritage.

David Macdonald
Troy Media
Summer heat isn’t the only thing making Canadians sweat this summer; abnormally high inflation and rising interest rates are putting the heat on many Canadians.
We’ve gone from 0 per cent inflation in August 2020 to 8.1 per cent in June 2022. That’s really fast. The last time we saw anything like it was 1970-73 when inflation rose from one per cent to eight per cent over three years.
It was a full 360-degree head turner, like The Exorcist, which also came out in 1973. Following that rise, inflation stayed between six per cent and 13 per cent for a decade, when it finally broke with the crushing double recessions of 1980 and 1981.
So what do you do when inflation soars to nauseating heights? If you’re the Bank of Canada, you try to suppress inflation by raising interest rates.
The problem is the bank is using a very blunt tool. If you’re hoping for a soft landing, I have bad news for you: it’s never worked.
Not once in 60 years has the Bank of Canada managed to lower inflation through interest rate hikes without causing a recession.
If a pilot told me, “I’ve only attempted this landing three times in 60 years, and I failed every time,” maybe they’ll land it this time, but it’s definitely not a plane I’d want to be on.
But here we are, in a fairly rare moment in history where rising inflation and rising interest rates are on a collision course.
What can you do? Rifle through the coupon drawer for sales, maybe. Ask your boss for an 8.1 per cent raise this year. Good luck with that.
When you think about inflation, what comes to mind is higher food and gas prices. The trouble with gas prices is that most of what drives them isn’t determined here. They are based on the price of oil and gasoline refining capacity.
Oil prices are up due to the Russian war in Ukraine, and refining capacity in the U.S. is down because several refineries didn’t re-open after the pandemic.
The trouble with interest rate hikes is that they won’t decrease food and gas prices. They’re more likely to cause a recession.
Controlling inflation with interest rates can work, but at a terrible cost. There are plenty of other things to try if governments are interested.
Governments don’t control the price of food and gas, but they do have control over other consumer prices. They need to exercise that control.
For example, the federal government can control who gets a mortgage to buy real estate. Let’s make it so that real estate investors can’t get mortgages anymore. A house should be a home, not a proxy for the stock market.
The provinces control how quickly rents are allowed to increase; let’s lock that down.
Tuition, transit fares, and child care fees are part of inflation and are controlled by governments; let’s bring those down. For instance, cutting child care fees by 50 per cent this year will make inflation negative for families with young children.
Governments can also help lower-income households better cover increasing prices. Remember the pandemic? The federal government made several one-time transfers to lower-income families. Those tools are already in place; let’s use them again.
Incredibly, most provinces don’t adjust their low-income transfers for seniors and children to inflation. Almost no province adjusts social assistance upwards to match inflation. It’s an easy fix.
This isn’t the 1970s; pandemic-related initiatives taught us a lot about the power of governments to act in a crisis. Now isn’t the time to hit the snooze button. 
David Macdonald is senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a non-partisan research institute.

Once again, the numbers coming out of Statistics Canada were discouraging. The food inflation rate in the country was 8.8 per cent in June, which is still higher than the general inflation rate.
Everyone is affected by higher food prices. Americans learned last week that food inflation at the grocery store was 12.4 per cent, a 41-year high.
Despite all this, consumers can see some light at the end of the long tunnel we’ve all been passing through in recent years.
First, I believe food inflation in Canada may have already peaked. Supply chain challenges are still there, making the movement of goods more expensive, but things are slowly improving. Pandemic protocols around the globe are increasingly becoming predictable, making logistical planning much easier. In February, the Russian invasion of Ukraine pushed commodity prices higher, making input costs an issue for most farmers and food manufacturers. But this seems to have stabilized as well.
Markets are much calmer than before and, most importantly, more predictable. If nature continues to cooperate, Canada’s agricultural sector should see a strong harvest this year, helping to keep commodity prices lower and costs down. Again, more good news.
Since March, food sales at dollar stores have increased by 18 per cent, according to NielsenIQ. Sales at discount stores have also increased by five per cent since that period, so consumers are clearly trading down, and grocers know it. More discount store conversions are on the way in Canada. We have seen at least 15 new major discount stores in the country so far this year alone. Depending on the week, consumers can save between 25 per cent to 40 per cent at a discount store, compared to a regular grocery outlet.
But the Canadian Dairy Commission played party pooper by recommending an unprecedented second increase of 2.5 per cent for September 1, as schools open in the fall. This latest increase comes after a record 8.4 per cent hike in February. As a result, the price of butter is up almost 20 per cent since December. In some markets, fluid milk is 25 per cent more expensive than last winter. The 2.5 per cent at the farm will look more like six per cent to 10 per cent at retail, for all consumers. As prices stabilize in most sections of the grocery store, dairy will continue to be the exception for a while.
To add insult to injury, we also learned last week that executives at the Canadian Dairy Commission – federal employees – received bonuses last year. The Crown corporation refused to disclose the amounts or reasons that bonuses were given. There’s nothing wrong with bonuses, but the lack of transparency is simply unacceptable. Taxpayers and consumers deserve better. Our quota system was designed to make our dairy sector immune to inflationary cycles. Something is not working.
Interest rates are also going up. Last week, the Bank of Canada made an almost unprecedented move, delivering a jolt to consumers everywhere by raising its benchmark interest rate a full percentage point. This is the biggest one-time increase since August 1998.
Since the announcement, mortgage brokers have been busy. For many households, the cost of shelter spiked, making it harder to spend on anything else.
But food is a necessity. Before the interest rate hikes, the market was flooded with cash, and some consumers had no qualms about paying $28 for a T-bone steak which obviously contributed to higher prices in our economy, including at the grocery store, especially for premium products and categories. As fewer people can now afford a $28 T-bone steak, we are expecting some prices to soften or even drop a little. Simple food economics.
With higher rates, though, our Canadian dollar will strengthen against the American greenback, making imports cheaper. And we do import many food products. This will likely help consumers who purchase centre-of-the-store dry goods, whose prices have skyrocketed recently. But the American Federal Reserve is also planning another rate increase, which could put pressure on our dollar. Interesting times. Higher rates are bad news for mortgage owners but good news for imports.
Overall, we should not expect prices to drop anytime soon, year to year, but the rate at which food prices are rising is slowing down. Food inflation is critical for our food economy, but a 10 percent rate is not sustainable. As predicted in December of last year by Canada’s Food Price Report 2022, we should end the year at about seven percent, as forecasted, unless some other geopolitical crisis occurs.
This is still high, but it’s not 10 percent.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Gwyn Morgan
Troy Media
People are beginning to understand that “the road to hell is paved with green intentions.” The green movement’s crusade to replace the 84 per cent of energy currently supplied by fossil fuels with windmills, solar panels and biofuels has led to much talk about energy supply and prices. But there’s also a profound human impact. Here are my actions and consequences list.
Action: Germany decides to replace nuclear power plants with wind and solar, which prove to be both unaffordable and unreliable, leaving no choice but to import Russian natural gas. Russia invades Ukraine. Germany tries to replace Russian gas with other sources.
Consequences: Gas prices increase by 700 per cent, forcing several European countries to restart shuttered coal plants. EU economies go into freefall while emissions rise faster than ever.
Action: Seventeen Canadian Liquified Natural Gas projects that would have eliminated the need for Germany to import Russian gas were stymied by impossible-to-meet government rules that required emissions resulting from their construction and operation be “net zero.” The Canadian government’s delusionary “net zero” target also drives policies that stymie exports from this country’s oil reserves, the third largest in the world.
Consequences: Germany faces Hobson’s choice of continuing to fund Russia’s brutal invasion or face disastrous natural gas shortages. Russia becomes the world oil market’s “swing producer.” Oil prices skyrocket, raising the cost of transportation for both industry and individuals. Inflation wreaks havoc across the globe.
Action: China pretends to reduce emissions while increasing cheap coal-fired power generation. Meanwhile, greens within government implement policies mandating costly and unreliable wind and solar power generation, combined with continually rising carbon taxes.
Consequences: Western manufacturers cannot compete, leaving no choice but to import Chinese goods. China uses the West’s money to produce the weapons needed for global military dominance.
Action: Policies are implemented mandating the blending of corn ethanol into gasoline.
Consequences: A huge reduction in global grain supply. The U.S. is the world’s largest corn producer at 384 million tonnes/year. One-third of that (128 million tonnes) now goes to producing corn ethanol. Other countries convert a combined 137 million tonnes of grain into fuel ethanol for a total of 265 million tonnes. Ukraine’s pre-war grain production was 74 million tonnes per year. The reality is that biofuel production consumes more than three times that much. Putin’s Baltic naval blockade of Ukrainian wheat, corn and vegetable oil exports is being blamed for the current food shortages. But as reprehensible as his actions are, the green movement’s impact on global food supply is profoundly greater than the Ukrainian export reduction.
Action: Carbon taxes drive up the cost of tractor fuel and grain drying. The price of nitrogen fertilizer, which is made from natural gas, rises. Prices for potash-based fertilizers rise due to increased mining and processing costs.
Consequences: Higher prices and reduced supply of cereal grains. Starvation in poor, import-dependent countries.
Action: Environmental zealots campaign for a ban on a product critical to third-world food supply. That product called “Roundup,” invented decades ago by chemical company Monsanto, has dramatically improved crop yields for third-world farmers by killing weeds without nutrient and moisture-depleting cultivation. From the time of its first development, green activists have attacked it as cancer-causing “franken-science.” But decades of experience and scientific studies from several countries have found that, when used with the same care as any other chemical product, health risks are extremely low.
Consequence; If Roundup is banned, food production in some of the most food insecure countries will decline, causing suffering and starvation.
Action: The Spanish and Dutch governments announce policies to ban livestock production. Farmers fear the same actions in other EU countries.
Consequences: Reduced meat supplies. Destruction of the way of life, income and property values of farmers. Socio-political chaos as farmers protest in Madrid and Dutch farmers block entrances to food warehouses.
The combined impact of the cereal grains diverted to motor fuel, carbon taxation on grain farmers and government policies to phase out livestock farming is increasing food costs while reducing supply. No wonder conspiracy theorists believe the green movement’s ultimate goal is to save the environment through global depopulation.
It’s time for a reality-based fork in the green movement’s road to perdition.
Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Olivier Rancourt and Gabriel Giguere
Troy Media
 
The Canadian softwood lumber dispute with the United States, which has been dragging on for some 40 years now, is long overdue for a resolution. Despite setbacks before WTO and NAFTA tribunals, accusations of subsidized production from American decision-makers and producers continue.
 
The accusations have notably led to the imposition of duties on Canadian softwood lumber, which has hurt the forestry industry in regions like Quebec’s Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean or B.C.’s Vancouver Island, for instance. These measures have sizable impacts on regional economies, given that the number of jobs connected to the forestry sector was more than 302,500 in 2019.
 
More broadly, these tariffs are counterproductive, as they hurt both countries’ economies. On the Canadian side, it’s producers who suffer, while in the United States, it’s consumers who pay the price.
 
In Canada, and more precisely in those regions where the forestry sector represents a significant slice of the economy, these measures impact softwood lumber producers’ exports. One study suggests that, with import duties of 20.83 per cent, there was a 18 times the wood contained in the framework of the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris.
 
Our projections show that from 2017 to 2027, these tariffs will have reduced Canadian producers’ exports to the tune of over US$3 billion. And this loss – in addition to hurting entrepreneurs in all producing Canadian provinces – will not even be fully offset by the increased activity of producers south of the border.
 
Unsurprisingly, American producers have benefited from these duties by increasing their local production of the resource. Moreover, the duties imposed cost Canadian producers around $5.6 billion between 2017 and 2021 to export the resource. It must also be noted that our southern neighbours depend on Canadian softwood lumber, with 84 per cent of our exports of this resource heading to the United States in 2021.
 
What’s more, this protectionist measure put in place by former U.S. President Donald Trump – and reduced, but still maintained, by President Biden – has a direct negative impact on American consumers.
 
Despite the increased domestic production of American softwood lumber, the big losers from this tariff are, without a doubt, American consumers, who have to pay inflated prices for this resource. Indeed, American consumers are hurt 26 times more than Canadian producers, who succeed well enough in finding takers for their softwood lumber. Consumers south of the border lost $1.5 billion in well-being in 2017 due to the tariffs imposed by their political leaders.
 
In other words, Americans who pay more for softwood lumber products are subsidizing, in a way, the American producers who pocket the profits. Since there is a net loss of production, with increased U.S. softwood lumber production not fully offsetting lower Canadian production, the quantity of the resource falls, and prices are pushed higher.
 
U.S. politicians must address this situation and eliminate the duties on this resource, which are a heavy burden on their own population. With surging inflation hitting 8.6 per cent for the month of May, a 40-year peak, households urgently need access to top-quality materials at low prices. The cost of living is rising, and removing these tariffs would reduce pressure on construction costs, giving some much-needed respite to American families.
 
Olivier Rancourt is an Economist and Gabriel Giguère a Public Policy Analyst at the Montreal Economic Institute. They are the authors of Canadian Softwood Lumber: A Costly Dispute for Consumers and Companies.

Consider this: for every minute that Toronto and Vancouver host World Cup games, taxpayers will be on the hook for $644,000.
Last week, Canadians learned that Toronto and Vancouver had been tapped to host five World Cup games each as part of North America’s bid for the 2026 World Cup.
Politicians in both cities have been trying to sell taxpayers on their plan to spend an absolute fortune to host just 17 per cent of the 2026 World Cup games.
Toronto Mayor John Tory is trying to convince taxpayers that this is a huge boon for the city.
“I think it’s going to be one of the greatest sporting occasions in the history of the city,” said Tory.
Toronto taxpayers aren’t so convinced. The estimated cost for Canada to host 10 World Cup games is approximately $600 million. And that’s before the cost overruns that everyone knows will be coming. What do politicians claim will be the benefit?
According to the city of Toronto’s own projections, local businesses will see an influx of $307 million from hosting the games. That includes a “boost” of 3,300 jobs, most of which will likely be temporary.
But a report prepared for Toronto city council this spring indicated that the cost to taxpayers for hosting the five Toronto games will be $290 million.
In other words, the economic gains the city expects to make are only $17 million larger than the cost coming out of taxpayers’ wallets. Does that sound like a huge boon for the city?
The city is also understating the costs and overstating the benefits.
First, there’s a trade-off cost. With $290 million, 63,000 Torontonians with homes valued at $750,000 could have a one-year property tax holiday.
Second, the economic benefits are also tenuous at best. Research in the United States found that hosting Super Bowl games only leads to roughly 10 per cent of the economic benefit the NFL advertises.
And then there are the cost overruns. The 2010 Vancouver Olympics saw cost overruns of 17 per cent of the total budget, while the 1988 Calgary Olympics saw a cost overrun of 59 per cent.
Even if the cost of hosting World Cup games in Toronto comes in just six per cent over budget, the cost of hosting the games will be higher than any indirect economic benefits the city expects to gain. Does that sound like a prudent economic plan?
There’s another question: why should taxpayers be on the hook for any money if only a fraction of the expected economic gains will lead to more tax revenue? Not only will hosting the World Cup games likely be a net money loser, but losses for taxpayers will be even more lopsided.
Agreeing to host World Cup games because of potential gains for businesses without regard to taxpayer costs is the very definition of corporate welfare.
Taxpayers in Toronto and Vancouver should be outraged. Neither city can run operating deficits, meaning the bill for hosting the World Cup games will be paid for through higher taxes or reduced government services.
But taxpayers outside of Toronto and Vancouver should be outraged as well. The federal government will be on the hook for approximately $200 million for Canada to host the 10 World Cup games, meaning taxpayers all across the country will be financing this fiscal boondoggle.
Should taxpayers in Saskatchewan be on the hook for a handful of World Cup games in two cities thousands of kilometres away? The obvious answer is no.
While Canada’s governments have been “awarded” World Cup games, no money is yet out the door. Taxpayers should tell Canada’s politicians that the country shouldn’t be wasting tax dollars on their political vanity project.
Canada should rip up the deal and let taxpayers in the United States and Mexico get stuck with the bill.
Jay Goldberg is the Ontario & Interim Atlantic Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.