National
Trudeau must prove he won’t tax our homes
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Franco Terrazzano
Actions speak louder the words. That’s especially true when those words come from a politician with a track record of breaking promises and hiking taxes.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he won’t send the taxman after Canadians’ homes. But if Trudeau wants Canadians to believe he won’t impose a home equity tax, there’s one thing he must do: end the CRA’s home reporting requirement.
In 2016, the Trudeau government made it mandatory for Canadians to report the sale of their primary residence even though it’s tax-exempt. If you sell your home, the CRA wants to know how much money you received from that sale. But if the taxman isn’t taxing it, why is the taxman asking that question? Is the CRA just curious?
Official Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre confirmed to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation he would remove this reporting requirement if he forms government.
Trudeau must do the same. Otherwise, Canadians should worry a home equity tax is right around the corner. As Toronto Sun Columnist Brian Lilley recently wrote, “For Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party, taxing your primary residence is a bad idea they just can’t quit.”
On June 25, Trudeau attended “a private town hall about generational fairness,” hosted by Generation Squeeze, a group advocating for home taxes.
What do you notice about the theme of that town hall? The government recently used the cloak of generational fairness to impose its capital gains tax hike.
The Trudeau government also spent hundreds of thousands funding and promoting a report from Generation Squeeze that complained of the “housing wealth windfalls gained by many home owners while they sleep and watch TV.”
The report recommended charging a tax on the value of homes above $1 million. The tax would cost Canadians up to $5.8 billion every year, and it would hit many normal Canadians. In British Columbia and Toronto, the typical home price is above $1 million.
Trying to improve affordability with tax hikes is like trying to boil water with your freezer. Higher taxes won’t make homes affordable. Consider this insight 50 pages into the report.
“Owners of homes valued over $1 million that include informal rental suites may try to recover the surtax by passing some of its cost on to renters,” reads the report.
It turns out higher taxes can make things cost more.
The head of Generation Squeeze was invited to a cabinet ministers’ retreat in Charlottetown last summer.
Documents uncovered by the CTF show staff in the prime minister’s office met twice with the head of Generation Squeeze, which included “a briefing about the tax policy recommendation.”
Trudeau has an appetite for taxing people’s homes. His recent capital gains tax hike will impact Canadians who sell secondary residences and cottages. He imposed a so-called anti-flipping home tax. And Trudeau taxes homes the government deems “underused.”
With Trudeau scrounging through the couch cushions looking for more money to paper over his deficits, Canadians should worry a home equity tax is next.
A home equity tax would come with a big bill for a young couple looking to upgrade to a family home or for grandparents who rely on the equity in their home to fund their golden years.
As an example, Canadians that bought their Toronto home for $250,000 in 1980 and sold it for $1.2 million today would pay between $50,000 and $190,000, depending on the type of home equity tax.
The Trudeau government has repeatedly flirted with home equity taxes. The only way for Trudeau to put Canadians’ minds at ease is to act and remove the requirement for taxpayers to report the sale of their home to the CRA.
Energy
Canadians will soon be versed in massive West Coast LPG mega-project
Welcome to the world of REEF
Most Canadians, know who Connor McDavid is.
Most Canadians, know who Connor Bedard is.
And, well … most Canadians know who Howie Mandel is, right?
Household words.
But do any Canadians, know what REEF is? Probably not.
The Ridley Island Energy Export Facility project, a large-scale terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C., being built by AltaGas to export liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and other bulk liquids to global markets.
Did you know it is providing valuable propane to Japan? No, not for barbecues, but for crucial energy demands in the Asian nation.
Japan uses propane (LP gas) for a wide range of purposes, including household use for cooking, water heating, and room heating, as well as for a majority of taxis, industrial applications, and as a raw material for town gas production.
Construction is progressing, with a target startup around the end of 2026. The project involves building significant infrastructure, including large storage tanks.
And it just so happens that Resource Works CEO Stewart Muir, paid a visit this past week to get a close-up look at a part of Canada’s export story that almost nobody talks about: a brand-new accumulator tank built to hold chilled propane and butane.
“It’s the largest of its kind anywhere. Two more are on the way, and together they’ll form a critical piece of the AltaGas Ltd. REEF project,” Muir said in a report.
”What stood out to me is the larger pattern: projects like this only happen because of the crown jewel of the B.C. economy — the Montney Formation.”
“It’s the triple-word-score of Canadian resource development: LNG, valuable natural gas liquids like propane, and the diluent streams that help unlock Canada’s single biggest export category, crude oil.”
Like the oilsands, the industry has long known about the Montney formation, which stretches 130,000 square kilometres in a football-shaped diagonal from northeast British Columbia into northwest Alberta.
According to CBC News, underneath this huge tract of land, the National Energy Board (NEB) estimates there’s 90 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe), most of it natural gas. That’s more than half the size of the oilsands, yet the Montney has received only a fraction of the attention, at least from the public at large.
For oil and gas types, the gold rush is on.
Without question, and despite the ire of green groups who seem to be against any kind of resource development in Canada, the Montney is the quiet force multiplier behind local jobs, municipal tax bases, and the national balance of trade.
And it’s all being done at the highest environmental standard, with producers like Tourmaline Oil Corp already posting a 41% reduction in CO2 emission intensity and a target of 55% less methane emission intensity.
”Congrats to AltaGas for pushing this project forward, and a nod as well to other major employers on the North Coast — Trigon, CN and Pembina, writes Muir.
“Quietly and steadily, they’re building the future prosperity of Canadians. And thanks to Mayor Herb Pond, who took the time to walk us through the regional dynamics that make this corridor such a strategic asset.”
Muir was gobsmacked by the size of the project.
Sources say Alberta’s midstream bottleneck and rapid growth of Shale oil and gas exploration and production, has created an absolute glut in ethane, propane and butane. Ridley Island takes this glut and transports it to the Prince Rupert region by railcar and exports to Asian markets.
Ridley Island’s current export capacity of 92,000 bpd is undergoing aggressive expansion to growth by another 115,000 bpd over the next few years in two more phases of construction.
Recent images detail active construction efforts of the storage, jetty and rail infrastructure.
Alas, every issue that threatens to derail the ambitions of Canada’s oil and gas industry — access to market, First Nations land rights, public acceptance of infrastructure projects and, especially, the climate consequences of burning fossil fuels — is writ large in the Montney.
There are now seven separate lawsuits, and threats of further escalation, centred on claims by the Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla First Nations (collectively the Coast Tsimshian) that they were misled and lied to by the Crown when they agreed to developments on their traditional lands at Prince Rupert, John Ivison at the National Post reported.
The dispute over a future propane export facility at the port has spread to other resource projects, and the two First Nations have launched lawsuits against the Ksi Lisims LNG project that was one of the Liberal government’s major projects announced by the prime minister last week.
Further, the conflict threatens to negatively impact any plans Ottawa and the province of Alberta have to build an oil pipeline to the port.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent announcements giving the green light to Alberta’s oil & gas industry has stirred the energy pot to new levels.
B.C. Premier David Eby — who prides himself on Indigenous virtue signalling — is pissed off. It appears he was largely left out of the loop and he is digging in.
Eby said the B.C. government needs to make sure this pipeline project doesn’t become an “energy vampire.”
“With all of the variables that have yet to be fulfilled — no proponent, no route, no money, no First Nations support — that it cannot draw limited federal resources, limited Indigenous governance resources, limited provincial resources away from the real projects that will employ people,” Eby added.
B.C.’s Coastal First Nations also say they will use “every tool in their toolbox” to keep oil tankers out of the northern coastal waters.
It is now apparent that all roads, or, shall we say, pipelines, lead to Prince Rupert.
The feds now face an imposing uphill battle, to leverage their standing as a regulator and resolve a dispute that threatens Canada’s crucial growth agenda.
— with files from CBC News, National Post
THE MAKICHUK REPORT is free today.
But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell THE MAKICHUK REPORT that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.
You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.
Food
Canada Still Serves Up Food Dyes The FDA Has Banned
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Canada is falling behind on food safety by continuing to allow seven synthetic food dyes that the United States and several other jurisdictions are banning due to clear health risks.
The United States is banning nine synthetic food dyes linked to health risks, but Canada is keeping them on store shelves. That’s a mistake.
On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced they would ban nine petroleum-based dyes, artificial colourings that give candies, soft drinks and snack foods their bright colours, from U.S. foods before 2028.
The agencies’ directors said the additives presented health risks and offered no nutritional value. In August, the FDA targeted Orange B and Citrus Red No. 2 for even quicker removal.
The good news for Canada is that Orange B was banned here long ago, in 1980, while Citrus Red No. 2 is barely used at all. It is allowed at two parts per million in orange skins. Also, Canada reduced the maximum permitted level for other synthetic dyes following a review in 2016.
The bad news for Canadians is that regulators will keep allowing seven dyes that the U.S. plans to ban, with one possible exception. Health Canada will review Erythrosine (called Red 3 in the U.S.) next year. The FDA banned the substance from cosmetics and drugs applied to the skin in 1990 but waited decades to do the same for food.
All nine dyes targeted by the FDA have shown evidence of tumours in animal studies, often at doses achievable through diet. Over 20 years of meta-analyses also show each dye increases the risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in eight to 10 per cent of children, with a greater risk in mixtures.
At least seven dyes demonstrate broad-spectrum toxicity, especially affecting the liver and kidneys. Several have been found to show estrogenic endocrine effects, triggering female hormones and causing unwanted risks for both males and females. Six dyes have clinical proof of causing DNA damage, while five show microbiome disruption in the gut. One to two per cent of the population is allergic to them, some severely so.
The dyes also carry a risk of dose dependency, or addiction, especially when multiple dyes are combined, a common occurrence in processed foods.
U.S. research suggests the average child consumes 20 to 50 milligrams of synthetic dyes per day, translating to 7.3 to 18.25 kilograms (16.1 to 40.2 pounds) per year. It might be less for Canadian kids now, but eating even a “mere” 20 pounds of synthetic dyes per year doesn’t sound healthy.
It’s debatable how to properly regulate these dyes. Regulators don’t dispute that scientists have found tumours and other problems in rats given large amounts of the dyes. What’s less clear are the implications for humans with typical diets. With so much evidence piling up, some countries have already taken decisive action.
Allura Red (Red 40), slated for removal in the U.S., was previously banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. However, these countries were forced to accept the dye in 2009 when the European Union harmonized its regulations across member countries.
Nevertheless, the E.U. has done what Canada has not and banned Citrus Red No. 2 and Fast Green FCF (Green 3), as have the U.K. and Australia. Unlike Canada, these countries have also restricted the use of Erythrosine (Red 3). And whereas product labels in the E.U. warn that the dyes risk triggering hyperactivity in children, Canadians receive no such warning.
Canadian regulators could defend the status quo, but there’s a strong case for emulating the E.U. in its labelling and bans. Health Canada should expand its review to include the dyes banned by the E.U. and those the U.S. is targeting. Alignment with peers would be good for health and trade, ensuring Canadian manufacturers don’t face export barriers or costly reformulations when selling abroad.
It’s true that natural alternatives present challenges. Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a food policy expert and professor at Dalhousie University, wrote that while natural alternatives, such as curcumin, carotenes, paprika extract, anthocyanins and beet juice, can replace synthetic dyes, “they come with trade-offs: less vibrancy, greater sensitivity to heat and light, and higher costs.”
Regardless, that option may soon look better. The FDA is fast-tracking a review of calcium phosphate, galdieria blue extract, gardenia blue, butterfly pea flower extract and other natural alternatives to synthetic food dyes. Canada should consider doing the same, not only for safety reasons but to add value to its agri-food sector.
Ultimately, we don’t need colour additives in our food at all. They’re an unnecessary cosmetic that disguises what food really is.
Yes, it’s more fun to have a coloured candy or cupcake than not.What’s less fun is cancer, cognitive disorders, leaky gut and hormonal disruptions. Canada must choose.
Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
-
Opinion2 days agoLandmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away
-
Focal Points2 days agoSTUDY: TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube Shorts Induce Measurable “Brain Rot”
-
Alberta2 days agoRed Deer’s Jason Stephan calls for citizen-led referendum on late-term abortion ban in Alberta
-
Business2 days agoBlacked-Out Democracy: The Stellantis Deal Ottawa Won’t Show Its Own MPs
-
Health2 days agoTens of thousands are dying on waiting lists following decades of media reluctance to debate healthcare
-
Agriculture1 day agoHealth Canada pauses plan to sell unlabeled cloned meat
-
Artificial Intelligence20 hours agoGoogle denies scanning users’ email and attachments with its AI software
-
Indigenous2 days agoIndigenous activist wins landmark court ruling for financial transparency





