Furey a major contrast with Trudeau on affordability

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

If Canadians want to find an example of a Liberal politician who cares about affordability, they should look to St. John’s, not Ottawa.

Time and time again, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey has stood on the side of taxpayers.

The latest example is his government’s decision to extend its 8.05 cent per litre gas tax cut for another year.

The gas tax cut has been in place for 21 months and has saved the average two-car Newfoundland and Labrador family more than $800. Another 12 months of lower gas prices will see family savings soar to more than $1,000.

Furey first announced the temporary tax cut in June 2022 and has now extended it twice.

The Furey government has also spoken out strongly about the detrimental impact of the carbon tax on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

In criticizing the Trudeau government’s carbon tax late last year, Furey noted “there is no subway” for his constituents to take as an alternative to the ever-increasing costs of driving a car to get to work or to bring kids to school.

That comment was a jibe at the infamous remarks federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland made when encouraging Canadians who can’t afford to pay the carbon tax to bike or take transit.

Furey noted if rural Canadians don’t have other transit options – and many don’t – then “the fundamental premise on which the [carbon tax] is based is flawed.”

Furey was also a leader in calling on Trudeau to take the carbon tax off all home heating, noting repeatedly that heating one’s home in Canada in the winter is not optional.

Under pressure, Trudeau finally did so through a temporary suspension of the carbon tax on home heating oil, which is a popular method of home heating in Atlantic Canada, but not in other regions of the country.

To Furey’s credit, he continued to call on the federal government to offer relief to Canadians who don’t use furnace oil for home heating.

Juxtapose that against the policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Without campaigning on it, Trudeau sprung a carbon tax on Canadians in 2019. He’s increased it every year since. And he plans to keep jacking it up every year until 2030.

Trudeau has tried to sell his policies by claiming most Canadians are getting more money back from carbon tax rebates than they pay in carbon taxes. Many of Trudeau’s allies have suggested that somehow the carbon tax actually is an affordability measure.

But the Parliamentary Budget Officer has laid out the truth: the average Canadian family is losing money from the carbon tax, big time.

The average Newfoundland and Labrador family lost $347 from the carbon tax last year, even after the rebates. That’s set to climb to $1,316 a year by 2030.

For years, Trudeau told us families would be better off with the carbon tax. But after pressure from Furey and other Atlantic Canadian politicians, he temporarily removed the carbon tax on home heating oil for the next three years.

If that’s not a mea culpa that the carbon tax makes life less affordable, then Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny must be real.

The broader contrast between Furey and Trudeau is their approach to cost of living. Furey looks at what’s taking cash out of families’ wallets – gas and carbon taxes – and tries to lessen that burden by fighting for lower taxes. Trudeau’s solution to make life more affordable appears to be more taxes, more spending and more debt.

The bottom line is that Trudeau, who is sinking in the polls and faces frustrated taxpayers from coast to coast, should learn a thing or two from Furey. Canadians want life to be more affordable, and that means lowering the tax burden, not increasing it.

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daughter convinces healthy father to die in double assisted suicide with mother

Alberta / 8 hours ago

Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design

National / 9 hours ago

Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case

National

Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case

Published on October 15, 2025

Todayville

Dan Knight

Group says Ontario Crown used “clearly incorrect” legal test to shield Trudeau from private prosecution, calls for independent process free of political ties

Democracy Watch has launched a fresh bid to reopen the door to prosecuting former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over his alleged role in the 2018 SNC-Lavalin affair, accusing Ontario Crown Counsel of using a legally flawed standard to shut down its private prosecution and continuing what it calls “a smelly cover-up” that began under the Trudeau government.

Read the full press release here

In a new letter sent Wednesday to Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey and Randy Schwartz, the province’s Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Law, the non-partisan watchdog group is again calling for an independent special prosecutor to review evidence that Trudeau obstructed justice and breached public trust by pressuring then–Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin prosecution seven years ago.

This latest appeal comes after Ontario’s Director of the Complex Prosecutions Bureau, John Corelli, used his authority in September to halt Democracy Watch’s private prosecution before it reached a preliminary “pre-enquête” hearing. In that letter, Corelli said there was “no reasonable prospect the Crown could prove that Mr. Trudeau acted with the requisite criminal intent.”

Democracy Watch disputes that reasoning, arguing it misstates the law.

“Crown prosecutors stopping this prosecution for a legally incorrect reason, just like the RCMP did in addition to suppressing key evidence, amounts to a smelly cover-up,” said Duff Conacher, the group’s co-founder and legal expert. “It shows clearly that Canada does not have independent, effective anti-corruption law enforcement and, as a result, corruption in the highest public offices across the country is effectively legal.”

The group’s new letter marks the second time it has asked Ontario’s Attorney General to intervene. In its first request in March, Democracy Watch urged Downey to establish a non-partisan selection committee to appoint a special prosecutor. Downey’s office declined that request in May.

Now, the group is reiterating the demand, saying the independent prosecutor should be chosen by a committee composed of people with no party ties, working alongside opposition leaders, to ensure public confidence in the process.

Conacher’s team argues that Corelli’s reasoning — that the Crown cannot prove Trudeau acted with “criminal intent” — applies the wrong legal test. In its filings, Democracy Watch cites the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Beaudry (2007), which clarified that obstruction of justice requires only that an act be done “willfully” to frustrate the course of justice — not that it be done with corrupt or deceitful intent.

“The Supreme Court has already set the threshold,” Conacher said. “Proof of ‘criminal’ intent isn’t required. It’s enough that someone acted willfully to obstruct the process. That’s what the Crown ignored.”

The group also says that the case against Trudeau is unprecedented and cannot be dismissed out of hand without judicial review. It accuses the RCMP of conducting a “negligently weak and incomplete investigation” that left key questions unanswered and accepted the government’s refusal to release Cabinet records from the time.

Democracy Watch’s original filing included testimony and documents obtained from the RCMP after a two-year access battle. It alleges that the Mounties failed to interview key witnesses, including Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff Jessica Prince and former Liberal minister Jane Philpott, and withheld portions of their answers in documents finally disclosed. The proposed pre-enquête hearing — which Corelli stopped — would have allowed those witnesses to testify under oath and allowed a judge to decide if the evidence was sufficient to proceed.

The group’s case was supported by Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C., and represented by Jen Danch of Swadron Associates law firm.

Conacher is now urging Ontario’s Attorney General to “do the right thing” and reverse course.

“Canadians can only hope Ontario’s Attorney General will work with opposition party leaders to establish a fully independent committee that will choose a fully independent special prosecutor to review the evidence,” Conacher said.

He also renewed his call for structural reform of Canada’s anti-corruption enforcement, noting that Quebec’s independent anti-corruption police and prosecution units (UPAC) have operated since 2011, while the RCMP remains under the direct control of Cabinet appointees.

“The RCMP lacks independence from the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers who handpick its leadership,” Conacher said. “They serve at the pleasure of the government, so they are vulnerable to political interference. To ensure integrity, Canada needs a fully independent anti-corruption police force and independent prosecutors.”

Democracy Watch’s campaign underscores a broader concern that the Trudeau-era SNC-Lavalin controversy, which saw Wilson-Raybould’s resignation, Philpott’s exit, and an Ethics Commissioner finding of improper political pressure, has never been subjected to a full criminal review.

For Conacher, the issue is bigger than one case. It’s about restoring the principle that no one, not even a Prime Minister, stands above the law.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Business

Over two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy

Published on October 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population.

According to a recent poll, there’s widespread support among Canadians for reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy. The support extends across the political spectrum. Among the political right, 82.8 per cent agree to reduce the federal bureaucracy compared to only 5.8 per cent who disagree (with the balance neither agreeing nor disagreeing); among political moderates 68.4 per cent agree and only 10.0 per cent disagree; and among the political left 44.8 per cent agree and 26.3 per cent disagree.

Taken together, “67 per cent agreed the federal bureaucracy should be significantly reduced. Only 12 per cent disagreed.” These results shouldn’t be surprising. The federal bureaucracy is ripe for cuts. From 2015 to 2024, the federal government added more than 110,000 new bureaucrats, a 43 per cent increase, which was nearly triple the rate of population growth.

This bureaucratic expansion was totally unjustified. From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population. And there are many similar examples.

While in 2025 the number of federal public service jobs fell by three per cent, the cost of the federal bureaucracy actually increased as the number of fulltime equivalents, which accounts for whether those jobs were fulltime or part-time, went up. With the tax burden created by the federal bureaucracy rising so significantly in the past decade, it’s no wonder Canadians overwhelmingly support its reduction.

Another interesting poll result: “While 42 per cent of those surveyed supported the government using artificial intelligence tools to resolve bottlenecks in service delivery, 32 per cent opposed it, with 25 per cent on the fence.” The authors of the poll say the “plurality in favour is surprising, given the novelty of the technology.”

Yet if 67 per cent of Canadians agree with significantly shrinking the federal bureaucracy, then solid support for using AI to increasing efficiency should not be too surprising, even if the technology is relatively new. Separate research finds 58 per cent of Canadian workers say they use AI tools provided by their workplace, and although many of them do not necessarily use AI regularly, of those who report using AI the majority say it improves their productivity.

In fact, there’s massive potential for the government to leverage AI to increase efficiency and control labour expenses. According to a recent study by a think-tank at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson), while the federal public service and the overall Canadian workforce are similar in terms of the percentage of roles that could be made more productive by AI, federal employees were twice as likely (58 per cent versus 29 per cent) to have jobs “comprised of tasks that are more likely to be substituted or replaced” by AI.

The opportunity to improve public service efficiency and deliver massive savings to taxpayers is clearly there. However, whether the Carney government will take advantage of this opportunity is questionable. Unlike private businesses, which must continuously innovate and improve operational efficiency to compete in a free market, federal bureaucracies face no competition. As a result, there’s little pressure or incentive to reduce costs and increase efficiency, whether through AI or other process or organizational improvements.

In its upcoming budget and beyond, it would be a shame if the federal government does not, through AI or other changes, restrain the cost of its workforce. Taxpayers deserve, and clearly demand, a break from this ever-increasing burden.