Opinion
PBO Report Reveals Trudeau’s Carbon Tax Crushes Middle-Class Canadians
PBO Report Exposes Trudeau’s Carbon Tax as a Middle-Class Burden, With Net Economic Losses, Crushed Job Prospects, and Hollow Rebates
In a bombshell report dated October 10, 2024, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) exposes the cold reality of Trudeau’s carbon tax policy: it’s making life harder for middle-class Canadians. While the Prime Minister continues to tout the virtues of his climate plan, the PBO’s findings show that far from protecting the environment, the federal fuel charge is crippling Canadian families—especially those in the middle income brackets.
Let’s be clear: Trudeau’s carbon tax isn’t just a simple “polluter pays” system. According to the PBO’s distributional analysis of the federal fuel charge, average Canadian households will face substantial net economic costs by 2030, despite government-issued rebates. Trudeau loves to parade the fact that Canadians get rebates through the Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR), but the numbers tell a different story when you dig into the real economic impact.
The Middle-Class Burden
For middle-class Canadians, the so-called “climate action” of the Trudeau government comes with serious consequences. By 2030-31, the carbon price will hit $170 per tonne, with devastating effects on household incomes. Even though rebates are supposed to offset the pain, the PBO’s analysis shows that once you factor in the economic fallout—job losses, reduced wages, and weaker investments—middle-class families end up worse off.
For example, in Ontario, a province Trudeau regularly visits to promote his policies, middle-income households will face steep costs. According to the PBO, households in the third quintile (middle income) will see $588 in net costs—and that’s just after factoring in rebates. When you look at the combined hit from job losses and reduced income, the overall financial burden for middle-class families grows even larger.
In Saskatchewan, things are even more dire. The average household in the third income quintile will suffer from a $1,205 net loss by 2030-31. For working families who depend on stable employment in energy, agriculture, and manufacturing, this tax punishes them more than it rewards them.
Trudeau’s Rebate Shell Game
Trudeau’s government spins the carbon rebate as some kind of economic miracle, suggesting families get back more than they pay. But as the PBO’s report shows, this claim is little more than political smoke and mirrors. The rebates might look good on paper for the lowest-income Canadians, but for everyone else—especially middle-income earners—it’s a losing game.
Even with rebates factored in, the economic damage of Trudeau’s carbon tax results in net losses for most families. By 2030, the federal fuel charge will contribute to an overall reduction of 0.6% in real GDP across the backstop provinces, which excludes Quebec and British Columbia. Middle-class families are stuck dealing with reduced employment opportunities, lower investment incomes, and weaker wage growth—all while Trudeau’s elite friends and the liberal establishment pat themselves on the back for “going green”.
Crushing Investments and Jobs
What Trudeau doesn’t want you to know is that this tax doesn’t just hurt family finances. It’s killing jobs. The PBO report shows that by 2030, the carbon tax will reduce capital income—that’s the money people earn from investments—by as much as 2.4% in provinces like Alberta. Worse, it will slash labor income—the wages people depend on—by over 1.4% in places like Saskatchewan. That’s devastating for middle-income earners whose livelihoods depend on industries targeted by the Liberals’ climate agenda.
While low-income Canadians might see minimal gains from Trudeau’s rebates, middle-class families face the harsh reality of stagnant wages, diminished savings, and a lack of economic opportunity. Trudeau’s tax isn’t just a burden on polluters, it’s a punishment for working Canadians trying to get by.
A Failed Experiment – Just Look at British Columbia
If you want to see where Trudeau’s carbon tax will lead, just look at British Columbia. They’ve had a carbon tax since 2008, and it hasn’t stopped a single wildfire, flood, or heat dome. Did that carbon tax prevent the devastating atmospheric river? Not a chance. This so-called climate solution has done nothing to shield British Columbians from environmental disasters.
Even worse, while the federal government has been collecting billions in carbon tax revenue, they’ve neglected to address the fuel buildup in forests around places like Jasper. For years, experts have warned about the dangers, and yet not a dime of that tax money was spent on controlled burns or preventive measures. The result? Our beautiful Jasper National Park was left to burn. Trudeau and his government couldn’t save our park, they couldn’t save our forests, and they certainly couldn’t save Jasper.
A Sacrifice for Nothing
My fellow Canadians, governments have been trying to control the weather since the dawn of time. Ancient civilizations sacrificed animals to the gods, hoping for good weather. Today, the sacrifice is your money. Yesterday, it was a goat to Zeus; today, it’s a carbon tax to Trudeau. In the end, it’s just another way for the government to take from you, promising it will fix things it simply cannot control.
But here’s the truth: this tax won’t change the climate, won’t stop the floods, and certainly won’t bring back our forests. The only thing it’s doing is draining your household to feed a bloated government. The PBO report is clear: Trudeau’s carbon tax is hurting middle-class families while delivering nothing in return.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Plus! Some tough lessons learned by journalists at all levels – not everyone is telling the truth and there are many people with the same name. Verify.
By now it’s established that Ontario Premier Doug Ford is either an ever so dreamy “elbows up” super hero kinda guy who’s shown US President Donald Trump who his daddy is or …. a ham fisted, narcissistic blowhard with all the finesse of a drunken linebacker crashing through the Royal Doulton.
If you follow social media, those appear to be the options. You choose.
The Rewrite needs your support to hold journalism accountable.
Please become a free or paid subscriber.
His $75 million ad buy attempting to show Americans how Trump is offside on tariffs with the late Republican icon President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) was either, as Ford insists, a triumph, or a disaster of epic proportions. Either way, the result is the Americans broke off trade talks until, well, whenever a very aggrieved Trump next wakes up on the right side of the bed. And the progressive bromance between Ford and Prime Minister Mark Carney looks to be on the rocks, with the latter admitting he apologized to Trump and had advised against the ads. Me? I thought Matt Gurney summarized the situation very well in the Toronto Star.
“The Americans are more than savvy enough to have figured out what we’re up to. They’ve responded to our good cop/bad cop strategy by shooting both cops and then torching the police station.”
The Rewrite, though, is about media, not tugging forelocks and authoring political thumb suckers. So what really made me curious about Ford’s ad spend was whether the premier’s media friends in Ontario were going to get their – what’s that phrase again? – oh, right: fair share.
People may have forgotten but it was only last year when Ford, succumbing to News Media Canada’s lobbying, decided that too much government advertising money was going to American tech companies like Meta and Google and not enough to people who report about him and his opponents. Consistent with the progressive belief that government subsidies can cure any problem, Ford ordered that 25 per cent of the $100 million spent on advertising annually by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), the Ontario Cannabis Store, Metrolinx and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) be directed to Ontario newspapers. And he didn’t stop there. The directive news release made it clear that “the government is also making similar commitments with its own advertising spending, helping to provide even more support for Ontario jobs and promote Ontario culture.”
Word on the street is that this cashapalooza – announced mere months before an election- has been warmly received by Ontario media, so I was already trying to find out who was getting how much when the US ads launched.
Turns out what should have been a simple task is not so easy. The specifics are not to be found within Ontario’s public accounts. So I wrote to Grace Lee, the director of communications in the Premier’s office and then Hannah Jensen, who also works there. No response. Then I tried again. Still nothing. When I asked if the directive “also applies to the Government of Ontario’s recent advertising buy in the United States so that additional government advertising – as is indicated in the directive – worth 25 per cent of the US spend will benefit qualified Ontario media” I got the same cold shoulder.
So, while there was a bit of publicity regarding Ford’s initial decision to subsidize Ontario publishers to the tune of $25 million-plus, no one is providing the details. The publishers must know and the government must know, but they seem to be keeping it a secret. It doesn’t seem likely, but if Ford is faithful to the words and spirit of his 2024 directive, there should be some additional cash flowing to approved Ontario publishers as a result of his Trump tantrum-inducing investment.
Alas, it appears unlikely the public will ever know if that’s the case or which media outlets are benefiting from the premier’s benefaction. That makes these arrangements look all too grubby. Keeping them in the dark, where they’ll stay because that’s the way the politicians and the publishers like it, is only going to further diminish public trust in media. But it’s unclear most of them care anymore.
A phrase in a Juno News report caught my eye last week and it should serve as a cautionary tale. In its report on a large Alberta Independence rally in Edmonton, separatism-friendly lawyer Jeffrey Rath was, understandably, a key source. But he was loosely quoted when referring to a competing Pro-Canada petition on the question of separation. Juno reported that “Rath said Saturday that he heard (organizer Thomas) Lukaszuk was 50,000 signatures short, with a Tuesday deadline.”
The issue isn’t whether Rath said that or not – it’s whether what “he heard” was based on anything other than wishful thinking and rumour-planting. Reporters should not pass along that form of information without verifying because, as it turned out, Rath wasn’t even close. Needing 294,000 signatures, the Pro-Canada petition collected 456,000 or at least 200,000 more than what Juno’s source, Rath, “heard.”
Fine if Rath wants to make a fool of himself. Reporters should be careful not to share the distinction.
A more established title than Juno was in a shambles last week when the venerable Times of London had to quickly pull a story in which former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was quoted criticizing Democrat mayoralty candidate Zohran Mamdani.
What went wrong? The Times reporter believed he had reached out to de Blasio via email and got a response that questioned Mamdani’s economic plan. The New York Post, also owned by Rupert Murdoch, jumped all over it but when the real former mayor de Blasio responded on X that the report was bogus, The Times stepped back quickly, issuing a statement that it had “apologised to Bill de Blasio and removed the article immediately after discovering that our reporter had been misled by an individual falsely claiming to be the former New York mayor.”
In an interesting twist, the international publication Semafor reported that it had “reached out to a Gmail address our sources believed to be the one used by The Times.”
And:
“You are correct. It was me. The real Bill DeBlasio,” the person who controls the email address responded.
As it turns out, just as there’s more than one Peter Menzies in this world, there’s not just one Bill de Blasio and The Times’ assertion that someone was impersonating the former mayor quickly proved contentious.
The guy who responded to the email turned out to be a 59-year-old Long Island wine importer named Bill DeBlasio.
“I’m Bill DeBlasio. I’ve always been Bill DeBlasio,” DeBlasio (not de Blasio) told Semafor after it knocked on his door. “I never once said I was the mayor. He never addressed me as the mayor.
“So I just gave him my opinion.”
The moral of this story for journos? As the old Chicago City desk saying goes, always “check it out – if your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
In the meantime, we await The Times’ apology to DeBlasio – the one with the wine.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
Censorship Industrial Complex
Senate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship
By Cindy Harper
Lawmakers pressed Meta and Google to explain how far White House outreach went in shaping their censorship decisions.
|
A Senate hearing this week discussed government influence on online speech, as senior executives from Meta and Google faced questions about the Biden administration’s communications with their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The session, titled “Part II of Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” highlighted the growing concern in Washington over what lawmakers describe as government-driven pressure to suppress lawful expression.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led the hearing, began by declaring that “the right to speak out is the foundation of a free society” and warning that “censorship around the world is growing.”
He accused the Biden administration of pushing technology companies to restrict Americans’ speech during the pandemic, and he faulted both the companies and Democrats for failing to resist that pressure.
“Today, we pick off where the story left off,” Cruz said, pointing to Meta and Google as examples of firms that “were pressured by the Biden administration to censor the American people.”
He pledged to introduce the Jawbone Act, which he said would “provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government.”
Markham Erickson, Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, defended the company’s approach, emphasizing that its moderation decisions are guided by long-standing internal policies, not by government direction.
“While we are a company dedicated to the goal of making the world’s information universally accessible, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have certain rules,” Erickson said, citing restrictions on “terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and other harmful content.”
He acknowledged that officials in the Biden administration had contacted Google during the pandemic to urge the removal of certain COVID-19 content from YouTube.
But Erickson maintained that the company “develop[ed] and enforce[d] our policies independently” and “rejected suggestions that did not align with those policies.”
Erickson also alleged that Google has a record of resisting censorship demands from foreign governments, citing its refusal to remove politically sensitive videos in Russia despite threats of imprisonment against employees and fines “that exceed more than the world’s GDP.”
Neil Potts, Meta’s Vice President of Public Policy, took a more reflective stance.
He reiterated that Meta has a “foundational commitment to free expression” and acknowledged that the company had yielded to “repeated pressure” from the Biden White House to restrict COVID-related posts, including satire and humor.
“We believe that government pressure was wrong and wish we had been more outspoken about it,” Potts said. He added that Meta “should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction.”
Potts pointed to policy changes the company has made since then, such as ending its third-party fact-checking program, reducing restrictions on political topics, and adopting what he described as “a more personalized approach to political content.”
These steps, he said, were intended to “return to our ideals about free expression” and “allow for more speech.”
Senator Cruz pressed both executives on whether their companies regretted complying with government demands.
Potts responded that Meta “do[es] regret our actions for not speaking out more forcefully.”
Erickson, however, declined to use similar language, saying Google regularly receives “outreach from a lot of actors” and evaluates flagged material independently.
The exchange grew more pointed as Cruz questioned Google’s removal of a YouTube video that compiled election-fraud claims made by both major parties. Erickson conceded, “Yes, that is news,” when Cruz asked whether statements by presidential candidates about election integrity should be considered newsworthy.
But Erickson defended YouTube’s policies during the 2020 election, saying that after states had certified results, the company acted against “claims of widespread fraud” due to potential “real-world harm.”
Cruz accused Google of ideological bias and suggested the company was “unwilling to express regret for anything at all.”
He contrasted that with Meta’s statement of remorse and concluded that Google’s position reflected “a level of contempt for free speech that does not reflect well.”
Where Erickson had insisted that Google “continued to develop and enforce our policies independently,” the company’s letter to Congress acknowledged that “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach” urging the removal of COVID-19 content that did not violate platform rules.
This was somewhat of a departure from the defensive posture Google maintained before the Senate.
|
|
|
|
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
Carney speech highlights how easily newsrooms are played by politicians
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
The painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures
-
Alberta1 day ago
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Business13 hours ago
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
Economy1 day agoIn his own words: Stunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.
-
Business1 day agoPaying for Trudeau’s EV Gamble: Ottawa Bought Jobs That Disappeared
-
Business2 days agoCBC uses tax dollars to hire more bureaucrats, fewer journalists
-
International11 hours agoBiden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”
-
National1 day agoElection Officials Warn MPs: Canada’s Ballot System Is Being Exploited
-
Addictions1 day agoThe Shaky Science Behind Harm Reduction and Pediatric Gender Medicine