News release from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Don’t feel too bad for politicians who lost the election because they’re still cashing in big time at your expense.

Defeated or retiring MPs will take about $5 million in annual pension payments from taxpayers. That totals about $187 million by the time they reach the age 90.

The former MPs who didn’t qualify for a pension (because they served for less than six year or are younger than 55) won’t be leaving empty handed.

The severance payment for a former backbencher is just shy of $105,000. There were three MPs who served for less than one year and will still collect a severance. The total severance payments for former MPs will cost taxpayers like you $6.6 million this year.

There are 13 MPs who will take more than $100,000 per year in pensions. The largest annual pension goes to Prince Edward Island’s Lawrence MacAulay, who will take $171,000 in pension payments every year.

If you thought that was bad, just wait until you hear about the golden parachute that is strapped to former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau is collecting not one, but TWO pensions from you.

Combined, Trudeau’s two pensions will cost taxpayers $8.4 million, according to CTF estimates. His first pension will cost Canadians $141,000 per year, starting as soon as he turns 55. That first pension will cost taxpayers a total of $6.5 million if he lives to 90.

The second pension is a special bonus just for former prime ministers. It will kick in when Trudeau reaches 67 years old. He’ll be lining his pockets with an extra $73,000 per year, which shakes out to $1.9 million by the time he’s 90 years old.

That’s right. Even after leaving office Trudeau will continue to cost you millions of dollars over the coming years.

Trudeau is also getting a severance payment of $104,900.

So don’t feel too bad for the politicians who you fired during the last election.

From Resource Works

“Canada is the largest G7 country in terms of landmass, and the smallest in terms of population. We are the only developed country our size physically and economically without a transportation strategy in place”

The concept of national energy corridors does seem straightforward enough, at first glance. It calls to mind a simple right-of-way that slices across Canada, the world’s second-largest landmass, containing pipelines, railways, telecommunications networks, and electricity grids.

Canadians have seen these sorts of physical infrastructure built before, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway during the Confederation era or the more modern Trans-Canada Highway. However, Garrett Kent Fellows will tell you that the true challenge of a national energy corridor is less about the laying of new steel, and more about the careful weaving of institutions to bind the country together.

An Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Calgary, Fellows is also the Director of Graduate Programs at the School of Public Policy. He is also a Fellow-in-Residence at the prestigious C.D. Howe Institute, where he specializes in competition policy, energy, and infrastructure economics.

Fellows’ curriculum vitae speaks of a scholar whose expertise is routinely sought by politicians, the business community, and thought leaders both in Canada and internationally. He formerly served on Alberta’s Energy Diversification Advisory Committee in 2017, as well as the Economic Corridors Task Force in 2021, and has provided advice to officials from the European Union and the Canadian Senate on economic trade corridors.

At any rate, whenever Fellows has something to say about corridors, people with power and influence listen.

There is a great misunderstanding related to the idea of corridors, which results in an idealized, simplified vision that politicians tend to champion.

“We have a tendency to think about corridors first and foremost as a physical footprint. A right-of-way or area of the country where we are going to put linear infrastructure. That’s not wrong; corridors are that, but they are also an institution,” says Fellows. To him, a national corridor must involve more than simple geography.

A corridor’s success depends upon deep institutional cooperation between all levels of government, First Nations authorities, and the private sector. This is a reality that comes with more challenges than leaders in Ottawa or provincial capitals will care to admit.

Nonetheless, the need for corridors has taken on much greater urgency. The world economy is uncertain, and the threat of trade wars instigated by Donald Trump’s return to the White House has only exacerbated this. Trump’s aggressive tariff policy has revealed the shocking vulnerability of the Canadian economy, which depends on exports.

Fellows is quick to point out that Canada, being massive but sparsely populated, is uniquely exposed as the largest G7 country while having the smallest population and lacking adequate transportation strategies.

“Canada is the largest G7 country in terms of landmass, and the smallest in terms of population. We are the only developed country our size physically and economically without a transportation strategy in place,” Fellows says. This weakness has only strengthened the need for a better-coordinated infrastructure plan that goes beyond simply easing exports, but also increasing Canada’s national economic resilience.

Canada’s history has been marked by impressive infrastructure projects built during periods of hardship, often utilized to boost employment and add to the economic recovery effort. Fellows can see some parallels between the climate of 2025 and the boom in infrastructure construction during the Great Depression.

In the 1930s, projects like the Trans-Canada Highway were developed as part of the federal government’s policy of fiscal stimulus. However, Fellows cautions against simply moving forward with corridor projects as a means of boosting economic security and employment, and says that they are not quick-fix solutions.

“Properly implementing a corridor approach shouldn’t be seen as a shortcut. So it may not be productive to think about this project as shovel-ready.”

Fellows’ concerns are rooted in history, as regulatory uncertainty and rushed processes have contributed to setbacks in the energy sector, such as the cancellation of the Northern Gateway pipeline, the tortured delays on the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and the death of the Energy East project.

Despite this, the potential of energy corridors remains a compelling and intriguing possibility. Fellows points out that investing in new infrastructure can provide an effective stimulus that remedies stagflationary pressures caused by world trade disputes. “Fiscal stimulus is a natural reaction to stagflation, and a logical one. But we should be thinking about a stimulus that will generate long-term benefits for the country.”

With this approach, stimulus borne of corridors is not just about economic recovery, but also ensuring that it leaves a permanent productive legacy for Canada that helps to secure long-term prosperity instead of temporary relief.

The promise of the corridor also includes the potential of untangling the web of regulations and other complexities that dog new projects. This can be accomplished by improving pre-planning and the environmental assessment process, which can prevent cold feet from investors. Fellows emphasizes that building a better regulatory environment requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders and due diligence.

Fellows is frank about the risk involved, such as stranded capital and white elephants left to rust when market conditions or political priorities change. “As with any infrastructure-based program, there is a risk of stranded capital. We can’t simply take the view that ‘if we build it, they will come.’”

However, he remains firm in his belief that the benefits justify the careful, purposeful efforts required. One of his most interesting insights is that the corridors themselves should not be solely defined as “energy corridors.” Rather, Fellows argues that the model has to bring together diverse infrastructure, telecommunications, transportation, renewable energy transmission, and critical mineral supply chains.

“To maximize the benefits of the corridor approach, we need to be thinking beyond just ‘energy corridors’ and think more broadly about economic corridors.” The rewards of this more holistic vision would lift domestic and international trade and create a foundation for Canada to build a more diversified and resilient economy.

Fellows also hammers home that the idea of corridors lends itself to idealism, but they still demand that people think realistically and be prepared for hard-headed analysis. Corridors are challenging, full of details, bureaucratic, institutional, and diplomatic—hardly an easy task. “Shortcuts make for long delays.”

Being aware of past failures in this regard is important, but Fellows says this makes the difference between accomplishing goals and spouting political rhetoric.

“Realization of any corridor is going to be hard work, but it will be worth it.”