Business
Carney says as PM he would replace the Carbon Tax with something ‘more effective’

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Carney stumbles out the gate on carbon taxes
Prime minister hopeful Mark Carney is supposed to be the economic messiah sent to save the Liberals from the depths of polling purgatory.
But right out the gate, Carney showed he doesn’t have an answer to the most important question:
Will he keep the carbon tax?
Carney should have seen that question coming. His campaign leaked to the media that he would scrap the carbon tax. But when reporters asked him that question at his campaign kickoff in Edmonton, he went wonky and wobbly.
It should have been a yes or no answer. Instead, Carney served up an unappetizing word salad.
“If you are going to take out the carbon tax, we should replace it with something that is at least, if not more, effective,” Carney said. “Perception may be that it takes out more than the rebate provides, but reality is different, and Canadians will miss that money.”
Carney’s stance on the carbon tax is clear as mud and it’s bad for two key reasons.
First: he’d replace the carbon tax with something more “effective.”
The carbon tax has been very effective at sucking a lot of money out of the wallets of Canadians. And the carbon tax has been ineffective at hitting the government’s own emissions targets.
The carbon tax is an expensive failure.
Second: Carney parrots the insulting Trudeau government narrative that the carbon tax is all a “perception” problem.
The message is Canadians are too stupid to appreciate the genius of the carbon tax, and if the government could change the perception of the masses, the carbon tax would be just fine.
Worse for Carney, his answer was an assault on his own brand.
Carney’s the guy who is supposed to have his homework done. Instead, he shrugged at the obvious question, saying he’d release a “comprehensive” plan later.
In other words: just trust him.
But here’s the thing: Carney should have had an answer yesterday and taxpayers have trust issues.
When the Liberals won the 2015 election, their platform was sparse on details about their future signature policy. The carbon tax was buried on page 39 of their platform as “a price on carbon.”
The Liberal government imposed a carbon tax in 2019 misleading Canadians, saying the tax would stop at 11 cents per litre of gasoline in 2022.
“The commitment was to go up to 2022,” then environment minister Catherine McKenna said, shortly before the 2019 federal election. “There was no intention to go up beyond that, there’s no secret agenda.”
After the election, the Trudeau government announced it would keep cranking up the carbon tax every year until it cost 37 cents per litre in 2030. Filling up a minivan at that rate would cost nearly $30 extra in just the carbon tax.
The current Liberal government still won’t rule out future carbon tax hikes.
The government also claims most families get more back in rebates than they pay in the carbon tax, despite the Parliamentary Budget Officer issuing three reports confirming the carbon tax costs Canadians.
The carbon tax will cost the average family up to $399 this year, even with the rebates factored in, according to the PBO.
Liberal leadership hopefuls who want to earn trust with taxpayers must push the Trudeau cabinet to scrap the carbon tax immediately.
The next Liberal leader faces a daunting timeline.
When Parliament comes back on March 24, there will be a throne speech, then likely a flurry of confidence motions. This could bring down the government and trigger an election.
On April 1, the government is set to hike the carbon tax.
Does Carney want to hike the carbon tax during the first week of his election campaign?
If Carney is as savvy as we’ve been told, then his answer should be a loud “no.”
To prove to Canadians he’s opposed to the carbon tax, Carney must call on the Trudeau cabinet to scrap it right now.
Business
Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

From LifeSiteNews
Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.
On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.
Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”
“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.
The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.
The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.
Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.
The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.
“I think the carbon tax has been in place for approximately six years now coming up in April and the cost keeps going up every year,” SARM president Bill Huber said.
“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.
“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.
“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.
The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.
Automotive
Electric cars just another poor climate policy

From the Fraser Institute
The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.
We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?
And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.
The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.
In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.
But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.
Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.
Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.
These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.
Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.
Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.
Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Chinese Election Interference – NDP reaction to bounty on Conservative candidate
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Fixing Canada’s immigration system should be next government’s top priority
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
China Election Interference – Parties Received Security Briefing Days Ago as SITE Monitors Threats to Conservative Candidate Joe Tay
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
London-Based Human Rights Group Urges RCMP to Investigate Liberal MP for Possible Counselling of Kidnapping
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Joe Tay Says He Contacted RCMP for Protection, Demands Carney Fire MP Over “Bounty” Remark
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Hong Kong-Canadian Groups Demand PM Carney Drop Liberal Candidate Over “Bounty” Remark Supporting CCP Repression
-
2025 Federal Election20 hours ago
RCMP Confirms It Is ‘Looking Into’ Alleged Foreign Threat Following Liberal Candidate Paul Chiang Comments
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Beijing’s Echo Chamber in Parliament: Part 2 – Still No Action from Carney