Public Money Should Build Public Good—Not Private Empires.

Every dollar collected in taxes represents a contribution from citizens who entrust their government to use it for the public good — things like schools, healthcare, transit, housing, and infrastructure.

Yet across Canada (and much of the world), governments frequently use public money to directly support private corporations through subsidies, bailouts, and tax incentives.

While there are times when public-private collaboration drives innovation or helps communities thrive, there's a crucial distinction between strategic investment and corporate welfare. Unless the public receives a clear return – either through grants with measurable outcomes or investment models that yield public benefit: funnelling tax money into private enterprises undermines both fairness and transparency.

The Principle of Public Stewardship

Public funds are not venture capital; they are collective resources. The government's role is to steward those resources responsibly on behalf of taxpayers — not to underwrite corporate risk or ensure private profit.

When tax dollars are handed to private businesses without clear accountability, three fundamental problems arise:

1. Equity: It privileges companies with political access or lobbying power, leaving small and mid-sized businesses—the real backbone of the economy—at a power disadvantage.

2. Transparency: It obscures how public money is being used, especially when deals are negotiated non-transparently.

3. Public Trust: It erodes citizen confidence when they see their tax dollars funding projects that don't tangibly improve their communities.

When Public Support Is Justified.

Not all public funding to private enterprise is wrong—context and structure matter.

Grants and incentives can be legitimate when they:

• Encourage innovation or job creation in underserved sectors.

• Support research and development with broad public benefits (e.g., green energy, health tech).

• Require clear deliverables and reporting.

Public investment models are also valid when:

• The government acts as an equity partner or co-investor, sharing in the upside if the venture succeeds.

• There are returns or royalties that flow back to the public treasury.

• The initiative aligns with a strategic public goal, such as infrastructure, housing, or sustainability.

In other words, public money should buy public value.

A more equitable approach is to treat public funding as investment, not charity.

Governments can:

• Offer repayable grants or low-interest loans that are tied to measurable milestones.

• Take equity stakes in promising ventures that align with public priorities.

• Require local hiring, sustainability practices, and transparent reporting in exchange for public support.

This creates a true partnership, where both sides assume risk and share in the outcome—rather than taxpayers shouldering the costs while profits flow to shareholders.

Accountability and the Public Interest

Public-private collaboration can be powerful when guided by transparency and shared values. But every dollar that flows from taxpayers to private pockets must come with:

• Clear purpose: Why is this funding necessary?

• Public oversight: Who approved the funding, and under what terms?

• Measurable outcomes: What did taxpayers actually get in return for their investment?

Without those guardrails, “economic development” becomes little more than favoritism toward corporations—and citizens are left to pay for it twice: once through taxes, and again through lost opportunity.

Tax dollars are the collective expression of trust—a shared investment in our future. They should be used to serve the public, not to subsidize private profit.

When governments choose to support private enterprise, it must be through transparent grants, accountable programs, or investment models where the public stands to benefit directly.

Anything less distorts the economy, deepens inequality, and weakens democracy.

Because in the end, public money should build public good—not private empires.