Essential goods shouldn’t be taxed

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

The Trudeau government’s two-month GST holiday on certain items has been called many things.

Former finance minister Chrystia Freeland resignation letter suggests she thinks it’s a “gimmick.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called it a “tax trick.”

But here’s a more fundamental question: If the government thinks Canadians needs a sales tax holiday on certain items, why are those basics taxed in the first place?

Items like car seats, diapers, and pre-prepared foods are all taxed by the feds. They’re all also subject to the federal government’s sales tax holiday, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says was triggered because Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.

“Our government can’t set prices, but we can give Canadians, and especially working Canadians, more money back in their pocket,” said Trudeau at his GST holiday announcement.

At least Trudeau seems to know it’s bad for governments to set prices. But the government does raise prices by adding sales tax on top of goods Canadians have to buy.

And you don’t need to be a parent to know that car seats and diapers are among the most essential goods on a parent’s shopping list.

Take a car seat. A mid-tier car seat costs around $250. The federal sales tax, which is currently at five per cent, adds $12.50 to the final cost of that car seat.

Parents across the country are no doubt asking why things like car seats and diapers were taxed by the feds in November, will be taxed again by the feds in March, but aren’t being taxed right now.

What justification can the government possibly give to parents on Feb. 16, 2025 – the day this sales tax holiday ends – for once again taxing things like car seats and diapers?

The same goes for pre-prepared meals. Many Canadians buy pre-prepared food at grocery stores to bring to work for lunch or to eat on the go. Why are the ingredients for that pre-prepared meal not taxed but the final meal is? And why take the tax off a grocery store deli sandwich now but not a few months from now?

There’s even more of an argument to be made on this front because many provinces don’t tax a lot of the items that are part of the feds’ sales tax holiday.

Take Ontario as an example.

Canada’s most populous province doesn’t tax things like books, children’s clothing, car seats, and diapers. Some pre-prepared foods aren’t taxed either.

If provinces don’t tax these items, why do the feds?

The Trudeau government took inspiration from the NDP when it comes to the GST break. It ought to also take inspiration from the party’s call to make relief permanent.

Trudeau’s GST announcement came just days after NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh called for the permanent removal of the federal sales tax on items like pre-prepared meals, diapers, and car seats. Singh’s proposal actually went much further, and included ending the GST on home heating, as well as internet and phone bills.

In touting his proposal, Singh argued that “those taxes never should have been there in the first place.”

Singh is right. Essential goods shouldn’t be subject to the GST. Period.

Just days after Singh’s announcement, Trudeau played copycat with one of his own.

But a two-month reprieve pales in comparison to permanent relief.

If the Trudeau government wants to deliver real relief to struggling Canadian families, essential items that most provinces already don’t tax, such as diapers, car seats, and pre-prepared meals, should be permanently exempt from the GST.

Permanent sales tax relief is more than doable. The feds could deliver on it without hiking the deficit by taking a sledgehammer to the more than $40 billion a year they hand out in corporate welfare.

Anything less than a permanent sales tax break simply won’t cut it when it comes to cutting costs for Canadians.

Related Topics:#CanadianTaxpayersFederation #JayGoldberg GSTHoliday

Up Next

What an Effective All-of-Government Program Review Might Look Like

Don't Miss

Gwyn Morgan: Natural Gas – Not Nuclear – Is the Key to Powering North America’s Future

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

WEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X

Crime / 8 hours ago

Tucker Carlson: US intelligence is shielding Epstein network, not President Trump

Freedom Convoy / 8 hours ago

Court Orders Bank Freezing Records in Freedom Convoy Case

Business

WEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X

Published on July 9, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

Yaccarino had raised concerns among conservatives and free speech advocates for previously serving as chairwoman of a World Economic Forum taskforce and promoting DEI and the COVID shots.

X CEO, Linda Yaccarino, announced today that she is departing from her position at the social media giant.

“After two incredible years, I’ve decided to step down as CEO of 𝕏,” wrote Yaccarino on X.

“When Elon Musk and I first spoke of his vision for X, I knew it would be the opportunity of a lifetime to carry out the extraordinary mission of this company,” she continued. “I’m immensely grateful to him for entrusting me with the responsibility of protecting free speech, turning the company around, and transforming X into the Everything App.”

“I’m incredibly proud of the X team – the historic business turn around we have accomplished together has been nothing short of remarkable,” she said.

After two incredible years, I’ve decided to step down as CEO of 𝕏.

When @elonmusk and I first spoke of his vision for X, I knew it would be the opportunity of a lifetime to carry out the extraordinary mission of this company. I’m immensely grateful to him for entrusting me…

— Linda Yaccarino (@lindayaX) July 9, 2025

Musk hired Yaccarino in May 2023, seven months after his $44 billion purchase of the tech company, then known as “Twitter.”

At the time, Musk’s choice to take the helm at his newly acquired company raised eyebrows among conservative observers who had earlier rejoiced at the tech mogul’s intent to rescue free speech on the internet but now were troubled about the credentials of the digital platform’s new head.

Their concerns were not without good reason.

Yaccarino had previously served as chairwoman of the World Economic Forum’s “future of work” taskforce and sat on the globalist group’s “steering committee” for “media, entertainment, and culture industry.”

She had also boasted about her role as an early cheerleader for the untested COVID-19 jab.

While at NBCUniversal, she also pushed discriminatory, equity-based hiring practices, based on “diversity” characteristics such as gender and race.

“At NBCU, she uses the power of media to advance equity and helps to launch DEI [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion]-focused initiatives,” recounted her online biography.

For the most part, over the last two years, Yaccarino’s performance at X allayed suspicions free speech activists at first harbored.

“Honestly, I was worried when she was hired but she didn’t burn down the house,” quipped popular conservative X account, @amuse.

Mike Benz, who serves as executive director of the Foundation For Freedom Online, a free speech watchdog organization dedicated to restoring the promise of a free and open internet, was far more effusive in his praise of Yaccarino.

“Linda stood up and fought for free speech during arguably its most acute crisis moment in world history when we were almost on the brink of losing it,” said Benz in an X post. “She stepped up for all of us in the face of what seemed like insurmountable pressure from governments, advertisers, boycotters, banking institutions, and astroturfed lynch mobs.”

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on July 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.