Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

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

Published

5 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Franco Terrazzano 

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

Cuba has lost 24% of it’s population to emigration in the last 4 years

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

A new study finds Cuba has lost nearly a quarter of its population since 2020, driven by economic collapse and a mass emigration wave unseen outside of war zones. The country’s population now stands at just over 8 million, down from nearly 10 million.

Key Details:

  • Independent study estimates Cuba’s population at 8.02 million—down 24% in four years.
  • Over 545,000 Cubans left the island in 2024 alone—double the official government figure.
  • Demographer warns the crisis mirrors depopulation seen only in wartime, calling it a “systemic collapse.”

Diving Deeper:

Cuba is undergoing a staggering demographic collapse, losing nearly one in four residents over the past four years, according to a new study by economist and demographer Juan Carlos Albizu-Campos. The report estimates that by the end of 2024, Cuba’s population will stand at just over 8 million people—down from nearly 10 million—a 24% drop that Albizu-Campos says is comparable only to what is seen in war-torn nations.

The study, accessed by the Spanish news agency EFE, points to mass emigration as the primary driver. In 2024 alone, 545,011 Cubans are believed to have left the island. That number is more than double what the regime officially acknowledges, as Cuba’s government only counts those heading to the United States, ignoring large flows to destinations like Mexico, Spain, Serbia, and Uruguay.

Albizu-Campos describes the trend as “demographic emptying,” driven by what he calls a “quasi-permanent polycrisis” in Cuba—an interwoven web of political repression, economic freefall, and social decay. For years, Cubans have faced food and medicine shortages, blackout-plagued days, fuel scarcity, soaring inflation, and a broken currency system. The result has been not just migration, but a desperate stampede for the exits.

Yet, the regime continues to minimize the damage. Official figures from the National Office of Statistics and Information (ONEI) put Cuba’s population at just over 10 million in 2023. However, even those numbers acknowledge a shrinking population and the lowest birth rate in decades—confirming the crisis, if not its full scale.

Cuba hasn’t held a census since 2012. The last scheduled one in 2022 has been repeatedly delayed, allegedly due to lack of resources. Experts doubt that any new attempt will be transparent or complete.

Albizu-Campos warns that the government’s refusal to confront the reality of the collapse is obstructing any chance at solutions. More than just a demographic issue, the study describes Cuba’s situation as a “systemic crisis.”

 

Havana (Cuba, February 2023)” by Bruno Rijsman licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED.
Continue Reading

Business

Tariff-driven increase of U.S. manufacturing investment would face dearth of workers

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

Since 2015, the number of American manufacturing jobs has actually risen modestly. However, as a share of total U.S. employment, manufacturing has dropped from 30 per cent in the 1970s to around 8 per cent in 2024.

Donald Trump has long been convinced that the United States must revitalize its manufacturing sector, having—unwisely, in his view—allowed other countries to sell all manner of foreign-produced manufactured goods in the giant American market. As president, he’s moved quickly to shift the U.S. away from its previous embrace of liberal trade and open markets as cornerstones of its approach to international economic policy —wielding tariffs as his key policy instrument. Since taking office barely two months ago, President Trump has implemented a series of tariff hikes aimed at China and foreign producers of steel and aluminum—important categories of traded manufactured goods—and threatened to impose steep tariffs on most U.S. imports from Canada, Mexico and the European Union. In addition, he’s pledged to levy separate tariffs on imports of automobiles, semi-conductors, lumber, and pharmaceuticals, among other manufactured goods.

In the third week of March, the White House issued a flurry of news releases touting the administration’s commitment to “position the U.S. as a global superpower in manufacturing” and listing substantial new investments planned by multinational enterprises involved in manufacturing. Some of these appear to contemplate relocating manufacturing production in other jurisdictions to the U.S., while others promise new “greenfield” investments in a variety of manufacturing industries.

President Trump’s intense focus on manufacturing is shared by a large slice of America’s political class, spanning both of the main political parties. Yet American manufacturing has hardly withered away in the last few decades. The value of U.S. manufacturing “output” has continued to climb, reaching almost $3 trillion last year (equal to 10 per cent of total GDP). The U.S. still accounts for 15 per cent of global manufacturing production, measured in value-added terms. In fact, among the 10 largest manufacturing countries, it ranks second in manufacturing value-added on a per-capita basis. True, China has become the world’s biggest manufacturing country, representing about 30 per cent of global output. And the heavy reliance of Western economies on China in some segments of manufacturing does give rise to legitimate national security concerns. But the bulk of international trade in manufactured products does not involve goods or technologies that are particularly critical to national security, even if President Trump claims otherwise. Moreover, in the case of the U.S., a majority of two-way trade in manufacturing still takes place with other advanced Western economies (and Mexico).

In the U.S. political arena, much of the debate over manufacturing centres on jobs. And there’s no doubt that employment in the sector has fallen markedly over time, particularly from the early 1990s to the mid-2010s (see table below). Since 2015, the number of American manufacturing jobs has actually risen modestly. However, as a share of total U.S. employment, manufacturing has dropped from 30 per cent in the 1970s to around 8 per cent in 2024.

U.S. Manufacturing Employment, Select Years (000)*
1990 17,395
2005 14,189
2010 14,444
2015 12,333
2022 12,889
2024 12,760
*December for each year shown. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Economists who have studied the trend conclude that the main factors behind the decline of manufacturing employment include continuous automation, significant gains in productivity across much of the sector, and shifts in aggregate demand and consumption away from goods and toward services. Trade policy has also played a part, notably China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 and the subsequent dramatic expansion of its role in global manufacturing supply chains.

Contrary to what President Trump suggests, manufacturing’s shrinking place in the overall economy is not a uniquely American phenomenon. As Harvard economist Robert Lawrence recently observed “the employment share of manufacturing is declining in mature economies regardless of their overall industrial policy approaches. The trend is apparent both in economies that have adopted free-market policies… and in those with interventionist policies… All of the evidence points to deep and powerful forces that drive the long-term decline in manufacturing’s share of jobs and GDP as countries become richer.”

This brings us back to the president’s seeming determination to rapidly ramp up manufacturing investment and production as a core element of his “America First” program. An important issue overlooked by the administration is where to find the workers to staff a resurgent U.S. manufacturing sector. For while manufacturing has become a notably “capital-intensive” part of the U.S. economy, workers are still needed. And today, it’s hard to see where they will be found. This is especially true given the Trump administration’s well-advertised skepticism about the benefits of immigration.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current unemployment rate across America’s manufacturing industries collectively stands at a record low 2.9 per cent, well below the economy-wide rate of 4.5 per cent. In a recent survey by the National Association of Manufacturers, almost 70 per cent of American manufacturers cited the inability to attract and retain qualified employees as the number one barrier to business growth. A cursory look at the leading industry trade journals confirms that skill and talent shortages remain persistent in many parts of U.S. manufacturing—and that shortages are destined to get worse amid the expected significant jump in manufacturing investment being sought by the Trump administration.

As often seems to be the case with Trump’s stated policy objectives, the math surrounding his manufacturing agenda doesn’t add up. Manufacturing in America is in far better shape than the president acknowledges. And a tariff-driven avalanche of manufacturing investment—should one occur—will soon find the sector reeling from an unprecedented human resource crisis.

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institut
Continue Reading

Trending

X