Poilievre is right – Canada is broken. But more government won’t fix it
“Governments have gotten big and bossy,” declared Pierre Poilievre announcing for the Conservative leadership. “See, in a free country, smaller government makes room for bigger citizens.” These words resonated like a symphony for those of us who want less government and more individual liberty.
Over his first year as opposition leader, the public has received a slow drip of policy commitments. We know he wants to eliminate the carbon tax, defund the CBC and impose conditions on grants to municipalities for housing. But none of these measures significantly reduces the size of government or makes it, as he promised, less “bossy.”
Desperate for evidence he actually intends to reduce government’s scope, Poilievre supporters are sifting through his policies for clues. His recent support for Canadian tariffs on Chinese goods leaves us with more questions than answers.
The Trudeau government decided to follow Joe Biden’s lead by announcing its own 100 per cent tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles, as well as 25 per cent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum. Among the supporting chorus, surprisingly, was Pierre Poilievre. In fact, even before Trudeau’s announcement, Poilievre was singing the tariff tune. In early August he accused China of “massively subsidiz(ing) steel, aluminum, and EV industries” and said tariffs were necessary to “protect workers.”
On this issue, Poilievre and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland vocalize in perfect harmony: she decries Chinese government support for EV manufacturing, arguing it will flood the Canadian market with cheaper options, leaving Canadian-made EVs less competitive. Their common ground is startling.
Are they also in tune on business subsidies? According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canadian governments so far have announced subsidies of up to $52.5 billion for a domestic EV supply chain to be built by multinational companies.
Poilievre clearly understands government overreach is a problem. On corporate subsidies for EV manufacturers he has written that “this money belongs to Canadians … not a foreign corporation,” though that does beg the question whether subsidies to Canadian corporations would be less objectionable. In fairness, he’s also been critical of government bailouts of aircraft manufacturer Bombardier, blaming the firm for taking “taxpayer handouts.”
North American governments are clearly trying to shield their big subsidies to the EV industry by restricting access to cheaper, foreign-made batteries and cars. But when we criticize China for distorting the market by subsidizing its own EV companies, we’re implicitly condemning ourselves. Our guilt is compounded because tariffs contradict the principles of free trade — a principle Poilievre has frequently championed.
Any proponent of free-market capitalism understands that subsidies distort production costs, leading to inefficient allocation of resources, and that tariffs shield domestic industries from competition, reducing the drive for increased productivity and innovation. As a matter of principle, Poilievre should not support such policy.
When candidate Poilievre flies across the country repeating the refrain, “Canada is broken,” there’s an underlying implication the government should be less involved in our lives. But so far, his signature policies do not significantly reduce the size of government.
Tacit acceptance of government intervention may reveal a squeamishness about pursuing what is unpopular. Small-government, pro-liberty policies are often painful, at least in the short term. They necessitate rolling back services, eliminating “job-creating” subsidies and cutting a bloated bureaucracy that clings to our private sector like barnacles.
No one is surprised that the Trudeau government has chosen to impose tariffs. This is a government that has increased the federal debt by 50 per cent and uses the words “investing” and “spending” interchangeably.
Less than a year out from a federal election, however, Poilievre supporters are left wondering: will he truly “fix” Canada by rolling cutting back government’s role in our lives? In the absence of a full platform, all we can do for now is hope.
Samantha Dagres is a communications adviser for the Montreal Economic Institute. The views reflected in this opinion piece are her own.