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.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Diplomacy is often a world of planned whispers and subtle signals to communicate complex messages. So, even sleepy folks noticed when the PM made a much-publicized bold (and seemingly impromptu) move and flew to Florida to play Trump-Whisperer. What was the PM hoping to get from that appearance? The best way to evaluate such diplomatic moves is to measure results against expectations.
From start to finish, the trip read like Trump’s move, when the president flew in a similarly bold and unanticipated fashion to pacify the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un –the “Little Rocketman.” Trudeau’s trip to see Trump was modelled on Trump’s Korean trip; it was an attempt to out-Trump Trump. That was the expectation.
Amid talk of nuclear weapons deployment, Trump surprised the world in 2017 by going to North Korea to meet with the leader of the most insular country on the planet, a man the traditional media painted as an irrational lunatic. That is not unlike the image of Donald Trump that CBC and the MSM chorus in Canada present.
Similarly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau surprised his followers and detractors, by flying to Mar-a-Lago, the capital of Trump’s world. The purpose was not to avoid a thermonuclear war but a trade war between the two countries. Such a trade war would hurt both countries but could devastate the “vibecessing” Canadian economy, which the Trudeau government is desperately trying to perk up expecting a general election in months.
The news was leaked once the Prime Minister was in the air heading south. A flood of commentators, who pretended to have no authority to speak on the subject, began to discuss what the trip meant and how brave and bold, silly or foolish, the Prime Minister was for undertaking it. This was like the attention surrounding Trump’s journey to North Korea.
The most surprising aspect of the announcement was that Trump had previously mocked and ridiculed the North Korean leader. While we don’t have direct insight into what the North Koreans called Trump at the other end, it was probably far from flattering. Consequently, it was hard to imagine how their interactions would play out. Many argued that the two men had nothing in common, often expressing this with professorial certainty.
There is no evidence that Prime Minister Trudeau has ever called Trump any nasty names in public, but Trump has not been as careful. After the G7 meeting in 2018, Trump referred to Trudeau as being “weak and dishonest.” However, we do know that Justin’s favourite boogeyman is the American “extreme-right,” of which progressive Canadians think Trump is the godfather. Whatever Trudeau and prominent government ministers think of Trump conservatives, they also think of Trump. There are many examples of how government members weaponized the concept. In October 2024, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland addressed criticisms from Conservative MPs by stating she wasn’t intimidated by “juvenile playground insults from the wannabe MAGA maple syrup Conservatives.” Similarly, amid discussions about Prime Minister Trudeau’s leadership in October 2024, some government members referred to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as “Maple MAGA” or “Canada’s Donald Trump,” expressing platitudes about threats to democracy. Readers might also recall how every lieutenant in the Trudeau legions pretended MAGA Trumpeteers and Trump himself had crushed Roe v. Wade and then claimed Canada’s Conservatives would do the same.
The PM, too, indulged in the same kind of attack during a July 2023 visit to the Baitun Nur Mosque in Calgary. During the event, Trudeau addressed concerns among the Muslim community regarding his support for the Transexual agenda and the claims of inclusive education in schools. He quickly invoked the anti-American narrative, shaming the man who posed the question for accepting what Trudeau labelled as radical right-wing American propaganda. Trudeau suggested that misinformation about Canada’s sexual education curriculum was being propagated by “the American right-wing,” which he argued was causing unnecessary division and fear among Canadians.
Many people were surprised to see Trump attempting what others had never tried in North Korea. That reaction was akin to that of Canadians who knew what Trudeau and his cabinet had said about Donald Trump and the American right. For Prime Minister Trudeau it was a victory to show pictures of his foray into Trumpian Mordor, giving him the chance to appoint himself the hero who will stop the detonation of a 20 percent tariffs trade bomb.
Immediately following the US election, the Trudeau cabinet quickly backtracked on the Trump insults. They suddenly forgot how they were presenting Trump as the figure behind Pierre Poilievre and his “extreme right-wing politics.” This was done with the same enthusiasm that Trudeau’s critics summon when joking about his supposed genetic connection to Fidel Castro.
Trump’s visit to North Korea reduced some of the heated rhetoric between the two countries; however, the North Korean Stalinist regime remains intact, along with its nuclear capabilities. Trump and Kim Jong-un did not sign any treaty to regulate nuclear weapons or establish lasting peace between their nations. Similarly, Prime Minister Trudeau returned from Florida without any significant outcomes.
There was no joint statement or announcement of an agreement. There were promises to continue discussions, which does not constitute a victory. All Trudeau can claim is a public relations victory like the one Trump touted after his return from North Korea, and that is not insignificant. But showing that Trump was not mean to him is hardly a diplomatic victory.
Trump provided Trudeau with opportunities for photo sessions without conceding anything or making any promises. He maintained his firm demand that Canada strengthen its border security to prevent drugs and potential terrorists from crossing freely. Trump takes satisfaction in the fact that a man he despises travelled to plead with him for leniency regarding his tariff threats. He is fully aware of this dynamic.
Prime Minister Trudeau may portray himself as someone who understands Trump well, but Trump holds the upper hand. He knows Trudeau is “weak” and desperately desires to maintain himself in power, despite his low popularity. Furthermore, Trump understands that Trudeau is willing to make significant political sacrifices to achieve a seemingly favourable resolution to the border issues. Trudeau badly needs a win, and Trump knows that Trudeau is willing to jeopardize his country’s economy to win. Consequently, Trump will likely capitalize on Trudeau’s vulnerabilities for all they are worth.
Trump understands that Trudeau is the ideal Canadian leader to engage with him, which should make Trudeau the least suitable person to negotiate with Trump if Canada’s interests are to be protected.
From that perspective, Trudeau’s trip to Florida is unlike Trump’s trip to North Korea. While both leaders sought to leverage their trips for political and public relations gains, the outcomes reveal the limitations of symbolic diplomacy and Trudeau’s inability to turn the trip into a long-term win. The latter is as much a function of the PM’s lack of skill as it is of the perception among voters that he is veritably done, no matter what.
Prime Minister Trudeau believes he is the only one who can deal with Trump from a position of strength, which is incorrect. His government has gimmicks but no strength left. That is why the prime minister pleads for a Team Canada approach to Trump and quickly condemns skepticism of his abilities as a national betrayal.
Trump will take advantage of that weakness –and if he can nail a man he despises as weak and woke, he will enjoy it the more. Out-Trumping Trump for domestic advantage was a fool’s errand.
Marco Navarro-Genie is VP Policy and Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of COVID-19: The Politics of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2020).
I want to write 5,000 words of narrative in the wake of Chrystia Freeland’s resignation, but we’re still in the middle of the story. Thoughts kind of pour out. I found myself telling La Presse, “‘What the f—k?’ has replaced ‘Hello’ as the standard greeting in Ottawa since Monday.” We’ll see whether they use that quote.
Here are some thoughts, from different angles. I don’t know whether Freeland’s resignation will blow over, the way Justin Trudeau’s last 20 messes did, because I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think Justin Trudeau hopes it’ll blow over. Because he always hopes it’ll blow over. I hear, as you do, rumours that the PM will resign.
On Monday night at the Laurier Club he didn’t look like he’d received the memo yet. On Tuesday his staff cancelled his year-end interviews, something I’ve never seen in 30 years in Ottawa. We’ll see.
Meanwhile, some thoughts.
1. A very British resignation
A standard conversational gambit in Ottawa this week is to point out that nobody’s ever seen a resignation letter like Freeland’s — I’ve given it some thought, and I’ve decided you’re a dink. (I paraphrase, barely.) Except that’s not quite true. Millions of people have seen dozens of resignation letters like it, because you see them every few weeks in the United Kingdom. And Chrystia Freeland was an editor in London for the Financial Times for years.
Canada is in some ways an unhealthily reticent country. I once covered an international summit where the only reason I knew anything the Canadian delegation had done was that I was sitting next to the journalists from France and I could overhear the French government’s briefings. Resignation letters here follow suit: it’s been a privilege, more time with my family, and out. You’re often left wondering, if you loved the boss so much, why leave?
But in England…
Rosie Duffield to Keir Starmer: “How dare you take our longed-for victory, the electorate’s sacred and precious trust, and throw it back in their individual faces and the faces of dedicated and hardworking Labour MPs?! The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party.”
John Glen to Boris Johnson: “I can no longer reconcile my commitment to the role and to the financial services sector with the complete lack of confidence I have in your continuing leadership of our country… [R]ecent events concerning the handling of the appointment of the former Deputy Chief Whip, and the poor judgement you have shown, have made it impossible for me to square continued service with my conscience. The country deserves better…”
Nadine Dorries to Rishi Sunak: “You flashed your gleaming smile in your Prada shoes and Savile Row suit from behind a camera, but you just weren’t listening… But worst of all has been the spectacle of a prime minister demeaning his office by opening the gates to whip up a public frenzy against one of his own MPs…Since you took office a year ago, the country is run by a zombie Parliament where nothing meaningful has happened. What exactly has been done or have you achieved?”
This newsletter is my full-time job. Paid subscriptions at $5 a month or $50 a year are a great way to read all my work here.
2. The Zoom call
I resist biography as an analytical tool. People outgrow their backgrounds all the time.
But just about everybody who follows politics has been wondering how Trudeau could fire his most loyal lieutenant by a Zoom call three days before he needed her to deliver a crucial fall economic statement. If the Globe’s latest story is true, and he told her Mark Carney would take the job without knowing whether Carney will take the job, that’s even wilder. Who does that?
The short answer is, somebody who is used to getting his way. Then you look at Trudeau’s life and you think, why wouldn’t he expect to get his way?
The rich kid always knows the normies will cover for him. If he needs a ride, some kid with stars in his eyes will wave his keys and volunteer. If he’s hung over he can borrow the lecture notes. He shows up in racist makeup to yet another party — forcing every other person in the venue to decide how to respond — and once again nobody stands up to him or makes a fuss. Indeed, when the record of that behaviour threatens his political career decades later, there’ll be plenty of volunteers to criticize anyone who mentions the record, rather than criticizing the guy who acted like that.
He runs for the leadership of a national political party on a platform of “I’ll tell you what I stand for after I win.” He mentions carbon pricing precisely one time at his first national leaders’ debate. He dumps his electoral-reform promise at the first hurdle, and later, when asked about it, he blames the person who asks. He gaslights Canada’s first Indigenous attorney-general for months, but he is not particularly kinder to her replacement, who is ejected from Cabinet because, I don’t know, it’s Wednesday or whatever. He lets a 72-year-old man run for re-election and only after it’s over does he let the guy know he’s getting dumped from Cabinet.
He fires the Clerk of the Privy Council by news release while travelling.
In particular, if there’s anyone in the world he might have expected to tolerate the kind of high-handedness we’re hearing about Friday’s Zoom call, it’s Chrystia Freeland. Her eagerness to endorse him in the immediate aftermath of his latest cockup has been such a reliable feature of Canadian public life it’s devolved into a kind of shtick. SNC-Lavalin, 2019: “she has absolute confidence.” Blackface, six months later: “tremendous confidence.” WE Charity, 10 months after that: “The prime minister has my complete confidence.”
Perhaps only Jagmeet Singh has shown more confidence than Freeland, over the years, in Trudeau’s leadership. Given that record — and his own much longer record of taking advantage of others’ generosity — it’s not too much of a stretch to think that at some point he decided his deputy prime minister was just another easy mark.
Turns out that’s the kind of mistake he only needed to make once.
3. Speaking of Jagmeet Singh
He’ll qualify for his pension in 70 days. After his astonishing scrum on Monday, he might as well put it on a T-shirt.
4. After Trudeau
Say he quits. What next?
Here’s something I’m starting to hear from Liberals. I don’t believe I’m the first to write about it, but it hasn’t received enough attention yet.
Can the party ensure the legitimacy of its leadership succession process?
I suspect some large number of the presumed candidates for his succession won’t run. They haven’t exactly been a bold lot so far. But assume for the sake of argument that there are four or five candidates, and none has an insurmountable advantage.
The Liberal Party transformed its leadership-selection process for the 2013 race: preferential vote among “supporters.” Supporters didn’t need any record of involvement with the party, didn’t need to pledge any support, didn’t need to pay a dime in return for voting rights. Whee! Populist rush: 300,000 people registered as supporters, 130,000 voted. Trudeau won overwhelmingly on the first ballot. Of course: he was the only candidate most people voting in the contest had ever heard of.
After a big defeat, or with such a defeat looming, figure far less than half as many people would be involved next time. Say, very generously, 40,000 supporters.
How hard would it be to rig that contest for mischievous purposes or worse? Probably not hard enough. In a vote open to every random “supporter,” it would take only a few thousand, or tens of thousands, of supporters to capture a major national political party for any cause or faction that might want one.
I traded emails with a former senior Liberal organizer about all this today. Without prompting, this veteran of many leadership contests mentioned the need to “ensure… that groups not Liberal-friendly are not organizing to disrupt the democratic process within the Party.” Those groups could include supporters of one side in the Israel-Hamas dispute. Or proxies for a hostile regime. Or pro-life or anti-MAID or anti-vaccine groups. Or practical jokers: Could the process as currently constituted block a write-in campaign for Doris Day?
This newsletter is my full-time job. Paid subscriptions at $5 a month
or $50 a year are a great way to read all my work here.
Canada’s median health-care wait time hits 30 weeks—longest ever recorded
Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine
51 new officers, 10 surveillance drones, and patrol dogs to help Alberta to secure southern border with US
The White Pill: Big Government Can Be Defeated (Just Ask the Soviet Union)
Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 reroute facing challenge in Wisconsin
TikTok Battles Canada’s Crackdown, Pitching Itself as a “Misinformation” Censorship Ally
Base Policies on Reality – Not Myths, Models, Misinformation and Fearmongering
-
conflict23 hours ago
Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine
-
Economy22 hours ago
The White Pill: Big Government Can Be Defeated (Just Ask the Soviet Union)
-
National2 days agoFreeland Resignation Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Speaks to Reporters in Ottawa
-
Alberta2 days agoYour towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing
-
illegal immigration1 day agoDelusional Rumour Driving Some Migrants in Mexico to Reach US Border
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoFalse Claims, Real Consequences: The ICC Referrals That Damaged Canada’s Reputation
-
Alberta2 days agoB.C. traveller arrested for drug exportation during Calgary layover
-
Business2 days agoMassive growth in federal workforce contributes to Ottawa’s red ink