Skip to main content

Mark Milke is the author of multiple reports on the economics of government subsidies to business.

In the 1993 movie Groundhog Day, actor Bill Murray plays an arrogant television weatherman, assigned to cover "Punxsutawney Phil." That is the groundhog that pops out of his tunnel each February to see his shadow (or not), and which signals if another six weeks of winter is on the way.

Mr. Murray's character, Phil Connors, despises the small Pennsylvania town after which the groundhog is named and its annual event. As cosmic punishment, Connors wakes up each day to repeatedly relive yesterday – Groundhog Day in Punxsutawney – until he finally learns humility and to appreciate small-town values.

Story continues below advertisement

In an early February coincidence – Groundhog Day was last Thursday – Canadians might feel like Mr. Murray's character every time another announcement of tax dollars for chronic corporate welfare recipient Bombardier is announced. On Tuesday, the Montreal-based aerospace manufacturer scooped up another $372.5-million in cash from the federal government.

Bombardier's latest cash infusion comes on top of a $1.3-billion payment from the Quebec government in late 2015. In addition, last year, the federal government ponied up $54-million for a Bombardier-led consortium. One should assume some of that will end up in the company's bank account.

The latest cash arrives in the form of a "repayable contribution." In theory, that's a loan. In practice, it might turn out to be a grant.

That is because a "repayable contribution" might have conditions attached whereby repayments might only be required if a company's target – a certain number of airplane sales, for example – is reached. Anything short of the goal, and the federal government might not require taxpayers' money be returned.

One problem with such government corporate support is that taxpayers will not know until much later – and perhaps never in the case of Bombardier – if repayment is likely.

Conditions of such loans are almost always secret. In addition, recent Access to Information requests, including one response delivered to me in December, routinely black out all information related to Bombardier.

The problem, as I noted recently on these pages, is that the Access to Information Act requires a department to not release potential commercially sensitive information if the company objects. And Bombardier has been in Federal Court for years to do just that. Thus, the federal government department no longer lists Bombardier in responses to Access requests.

Story continues below advertisement

I can partly detail what Bombardier (previously) received only due to a 2012 Access request which listed various federal payments (but not repayments) over the decades to Bombardier. (The federal government provides some public estimates for Bombardier; they are incomplete and do not include grants, or forgiven interest payments over the decades.)

In a 2014 report on subsidies for the Fraser Institute based on past Access requests, I chronicled Bombardier's first infusion of government cash in 1966 and until 2013. The results: Bombardier, and de Havilland, which Bombardier took over in 1992, together received 83 such taxpayer-financed cheques from the federal government alone. That was worth $2.2-billion.

After 2013, taxpayers through the Quebec government have provided another "instalment" worth $1.3-billion (last year) and Tuesday's federal allocation of $372.5-million. That adds up to 85 disbursements in total – at least that I could track. Also, the federal government wrote off $108-million in third party-loans to buyers of Bombardier aircraft in 2008.

With some updates for inflation for the above, it appears Bombardier (including de Havilland) received about $4.1-billion from the federal and Quebec governments since 1966. That assumes no other province beyond Quebec, and no federal department beyond the department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, has disbursed additional money to Bombardier. Given the Access to Information blackouts for Bombardier, that is not a safe assumption.

Also, other countries may well have provided additional cash from their taxpayers: Bombardier has facilities in Mexico, for example, and thus may have received loans or grants from that country's taxpayers.

Thus, reliving Groundhog Day with Bombardier year-in and year-out, may be a regular experience that extends beyond just Canada's taxpayers.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter