Famed economist Joseph Schumpeter explained the folly of such interventions in his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy about the process of “creative destruction.” For economic progress to occur, jobs and industries must be destroyed. For example, the invention and widespread adoption of automobiles destroyed the horse-drawn carriage industry, and many jobs with it. The mechanization of agriculture, invention of computers, and advent of the Internet all destroyed jobs—and allowed many new ones to be created. New and improved products, services and processes mean the old ones go away.

Government interventions to protect certain jobs and industries therefore stifle innovation and progress. By directing capital into certain industries, the government prevents markets from reallocating economic resources to where they would be more productive. As a general rule, activities that need subsidies to continue are less productive than activities that do not need subsidies. This is why studies find business subsidies do the economy little to no good.

The negative impact on economic productivity and efficiency is one problem with the $228 million spending program; unfairness is another. According to the announcement, the Ontario and federal governments will help “up to 27,000 workers across the province retrain, upgrade their skills and stay competitive in key sectors of the economy, including softwood lumber, steel and automotive manufacturing.” This spending is part of something called the “Canada-Ontario Workforce Tariff Response.”

But why should those in tariff-affected industries receive special government protection or funding? There’s nothing unique about tariffs (misguided as they are). Many other things cause job losses and negatively impact industries.

Take today’s most popular example of creative destruction—artificial intelligence. Stories abound of employers laying off workers as they automate tasks by leveraging AI, and the increasing use of AI to do work that would previously have been performed by entry-level workers has resulted in many fresh graduates and young technology workers remaining unemployed for extended periods of time. Are young tech workers less deserving of government support than workers in softwood lumber, steel and auto manufacturing?

Shifting consumer preferences also destroy some new jobs and create new ones. If large segments of the population decide to start eating more ice cream cones and fewer fruits and vegetables, jobs will be lost at fruit and vegetable shops. If this were to happen, should the Ontario and federal governments create a workforce response program and spend millions of dollars to protect fruit and vegetable shops and their workers? And if not, why should workers or firms in tariff-affected industries receive such privileges?

In reality, there’s no justification for governments to give preferential treatment to workers and industries impacted by tariffs at the expense of everyone else. There would be, similarly, no justification for special government programs to help workers affected by AI, or to give money to owners and employees of ice cream shops or fruit and vegetable shops if demand for their products declines.

The Ontario and federal governments simply do not have and cannot obtain the sufficient economic knowledge required to successfully and fairly implement top-down industrial strategies such as this $228 million workforce tariff response. Governments have no good way of deciding which workers or industries to “protect,” nor what kind of protection they should receive.

For the best and fairest results, therefore, the Ontario and federal governments should step back and simply save taxpayers the $228 million.

Matthew Lau is an adjunct scholar with the Fraser Institute.