Business
Taxpayers release Naughty and Nice List

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Franco Terrazzano
CBC President and CEO Catherine Tait tops the Taxpayer Naughty List for announcing hundreds of layoffs weeks before Christmas without cancelling bonuses for executives.
“It takes a special type of Scrooge to lay off hundreds of employees weeks before the holidays and not be willing to give up your own bonus, but that’s exactly what taxpayers heard from CBC big shots,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Meanwhile, Senator Pierre Dalphond delayed and watered-down carbon tax relief for farmers and now Santa’s furious because the bills for his candy cane farm and reindeer barn are through the chimney.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the Taxpayer Naughty List for removing the carbon tax from furnace oil for three years while leaving 97 per cent of Canadian families out in the cold. Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston also found himself in Santa’s bad books for taking more money from taxpayers through the sneaky income tax hike known as bracket creep.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew made the Taxpayer Nice List for providing taxpayers with Santa-sized fuel and income tax relief. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also made Santa’s good books for improving accountability and transparency in Ottawa.
“‘Tis the season for giving, but Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek and Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi shouldn’t be giving their residents steep tax hikes while they give themselves a raise,” said Kris Sims, Alberta Director of the CTF. “The entire Alberta village of Ryley made Santa’s good books for using recall legislation to boot a big-spending politician.”
The 2023 Taxpayer Naughty and Nice List
The Naughty List (So…. long!)
CBC President & CEO Catherine Tait – For clinging to executive bonuses
It takes a special type of Scrooge to announce hundreds of layoffs weeks before Christmas. Even worse, Tait isn’t willing to end the tens-of-millions of dollars in bonuses the CBC doled out in recent years. ‘Tis the season for giving… but giving out bonuses while firing hundreds of staffers is a sure-fire way to land yourself on Santa’s Naughty List!
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – For leaving 97 per cent of Canadians out in the cold
All Canadians need a warm home to celebrate during the holiday season. But Trudeau thinks only three per cent of Canadians need carbon tax relief this winter. Trudeau is removing the carbon tax from furnace oil while keeping the tax on for 97 per cent of Canadian families. Santa is stuffing the prime minister’s stocking with lumps of coal this year and Trudeau will be sure to carbon tax those lumps, too.
Senator Pierre Dalphond – For making Santa’s milk and cookies more expensive
The holiday season is a time to enjoy festive feasts with loved ones. But Senator Pierre Dalphond is making the holiday season more expensive by delaying and watering down a bill that would take the carbon tax off all farm fuels. Canadians worry they may have to cut back on the milk and cookies they leave out on Christmas eve. Unfortunately for Senator Dalphond, Santa is not a happy camper, because the bills for his candy cane farm and reindeer barn are going through the chimney.
Mayor of Quebec City Bruno Marchand and Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim – For hiking taxes on pets
It’s one thing to tax the air we breathe, the money we earn or the presents we buy. But taxing our pets … have you no heart, Mr. Grinch? Mayors Marchand and Sim are hiking the taxes families pay to own pets in Quebec City and Vancouver. Rumour has it Santa is launching a campaign to take the tax off his reindeer.
Federal Minister of Industry François-Philippe Champagne – For giving billions of dollars to multinational corporations
There’s only one place you’ll find yourself if you pull a reverse Robin Hood … Santa’s Naughty List! Champagne has been busy taking money from struggling taxpayers and giving billions of dollars to multinational corporations to build electric car battery plants. Champagne should take notes from
Santa and his little helpers. They’ve been building batteries and remote-control hot rods for decades, at no cost to taxpayers!
Mayor of Calgary Jyoti Gondek and Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi – For hiking taxes and their own pay
‘Tis the season for giving … and mayors Gondek and Sohi sure do love giving. They’re giving their residents steep property tax hikes. And they’re giving themselves pay raises. Calgary City Council and Edmonton city council both took a raise this year. More lumps of coal: both Gondek and Sohi take bigger salaries than the premier of Alberta.
Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston – For his bracket creep income tax hike
Nothing makes Santa more upset than bracket creep. It’s a sneaky backdoor tax grab that allows politicians to use inflation to raise income taxes. Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is using bracket creep to gouge taxpayers. And for that, Houston finds himself on Santa’s Naughty List this year.
University of Manitoba’s former law dean Jonathan Black-Branch – For racking up half-a-million in expenses
Black-Branch’s term was cut short after an internal investigation found he expensed upwards of $500,000 in public funds, including for personal dinners and drinks. Now that’s a lot of cookies and eggnog! There’s only one way for Black-Branch to get off the Naughty List: pay the money back.
The Nice List (So… short!)
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew – For the gift of tax relief
Kinew is giving Manitobans Santa-sized fuel and income tax relief in the New Year. He committed
to suspending the province’s fuel tax and providing significant income tax relief. And kudos to the previous Manitoba government who didn’t forget about the Tiny Tims. Thanks to the last budget, taxpayers earning less than $15,000 won’t pay any provincial income taxes.
Liberal MP Ken McDonald – For getting his constituents carbon tax relief
It takes a lot of courage to stand up for your convictions and constituents, and vote against your party leader. McDonald did just that when he voted to “repeal all carbon taxes.” Because of his advocacy, the feds took the carbon tax off furnace oil for three years. Santa just wishes Liberal MPs in other parts of Canada had McDonald’s courage and were willing to stick up for their constituents too.
Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux – For the gift of government accountability and transparency
Taxpayers always deserve the gift of transparency and accountability in Ottawa. And the PBO delivered it in droves in 2023. From showing the full cost of Trudeau’s two carbon taxes, to fact-checking Ottawa’s deficit numbers and analyzing tax plans, the PBO has been holding politicians accountable all year.
Alberta’s Village of Ryley – For recalling a big-spending mayor
Ryley is the first municipality in Canada to recall a city hall politician, former mayor Nik Lee. During Lee’s tenure, the village’s spending almost doubled from $1.7 million to $3 million in 2022. Lee also spent more than $5,000 on meetings without approval. When Lee refused to resign from council, residents of Ryley took matters into their own hands, launched a recall campaign and booted Lee. For their civic engagement and holding a big-spending politician accountable, all residents of Ryley land themselves on Santa’s Nice List this year!
Business
B.C. Credit Downgrade Signals Deepening Fiscal Trouble

Dan Knight
Spending is up, debt is exploding, and taxpayers are footing the bill—how David Eby’s reckless economics just pushed British Columbia one step closer to the brink.
So here’s something they’re not going to explain on CBC—British Columbia just got slapped with yet another credit downgrade. Actually, two. On April 2nd, both S&P Global and Moody’s—two of the most powerful financial watchdogs on the planet—downgraded B.C.’s credit rating. And not by accident. This wasn’t a glitch in the system or some market hiccup. This was a direct consequence of political recklessness.
Let’s talk numbers. S&P cut B.C.’s rating from ‘AA-’ to ‘A+’. Moody’s dropped it from ‘aa1’ to ‘aa2’. That’s the fourth downgrade in four years. Four. This is a province that used to hold AAA status—the financial gold standard. That means British Columbia was once considered one of the most fiscally stable jurisdictions not just in Canada, but globally. Not anymore.
Even more alarming? S&P didn’t just hit their long-term rating—they downgraded the short-term rating too, from ‘A-1+’ to ‘A-1’. Why? Because even in the short term, B.C. is starting to look like a risk. A liquidity risk. That means the money might not be there when it’s needed. That’s a red flag for anyone with a calculator and a memory longer than five minutes.
This is not some vague bureaucratic move. This is a direct indictment of the NDP’s economic policies in British Columbia. This is what happens when you treat taxpayers like an ATM machine and the economy like a social experiment. And now, international financial institutions are officially saying what a lot of people have been screaming for years: B.C. is in serious fiscal trouble.
Causes: Spending, Deficits, and Revenue Pressure
The core driver behind the downgrades is the ballooning of operating and capital deficits, coupled with aggressive government spending. According to B.C.’s 2025 budget, unveiled by Finance Minister Brenda Bailey on March 4, the provincial deficit is projected to hit $10.9 billion in 2025–26—up from $9.1 billion the previous year. Moody’s projects an even higher shortfall of $14.3 billion, raising red flags about B.C.’s ability to fund programs without unsustainable borrowing.
S&P cited the impact of reduced immigration levels and ongoing trade uncertainty as key headwinds, limiting economic growth and shrinking the province’s revenue base. Moody’s pointed to persistent budgetary gaps and limited progress on deficit reduction, highlighting the growing gap between revenue and expenditure.
Additionally, spending growth has significantly outpaced both population and inflation. Data from the Fraser Institute shows that between 2019/20 and 2024/25, program spending increased by 51.6%, whereas only 29.2% was needed to keep pace with demographic and price trends. This excess has pushed real per-capita expenditures to historic highs, without a corresponding rise in revenue.
Opposition Blames NDP Mismanagement for Downgrade
But what does that actually mean for real people—not bureaucrats, not lobbyists—but the mom on a fixed income buying groceries? So I reached out to John Rustad, leader of the Official Opposition in B.C., to ask exactly that.
“Two downgrades! Absolute disaster,” he told me. “Under David Eby, we’ve gone from a AAA status to a single A with a negative outlook. This government’s reckless spending and irresponsible management will have a devastating effect—not just today, but for generations to come.”
He’s not exaggerating. According to Rustad, by the end of this fiscal period, B.C.’s debt will have nearly tripled since the NDP took power. Let that sink in—tripled. And no, this isn’t just some abstract macroeconomic trend. This hits you. Directly.
Rustad laid it out. These downgrades mean higher borrowing costs for the province. That’s code for more taxpayer money getting funneled into interest payments instead of hospitals, schools, or—God forbid—tax relief.
“By the end of this fiscal plan, even before the downgrade and before the loss of billions in carbon tax revenue, interest payments were projected to hit $7 billion annually,” Rustad said. “That’s about 30% of personal income tax revenue—just to pay the interest.”
That’s money you send to Victoria every month—just lighting it on fire.
And with the downgrade? Expect to pay another $1 billion more in interest. That’s around $200 per person, per year. Not for roads. Not for services. Just to keep the debt monster fed.
Meanwhile, Premier David Eby—well, he’s had months to plan for replacing the carbon tax, and guess what? Still no plan. Rustad told me he expected Eby to raise industrial taxes to make up the difference, but even that hasn’t happened yet. For now, the hole is just growing—a $2 billion loss in carbon tax revenue on top of an $11 billion deficit.
So What Does This Mean for the Average Mom?
In response to a direct question about what this credit downgrade means for a mother living on a fixed income, Opposition Leader John Rustad laid out the long-term consequences in no uncertain terms:
“The average person will not notice this immediately. But what it does mean is higher borrowing costs, So with the massive deficit and debt, more money will need to be spent on interest payments. By the end of this fiscal, before loss of billions in carbon tax revenue and before the debt downgrades, interest payments would increase to about $7 billion by the end of the fiscal plan. To put that in perspective, that would be the equivalent of 30% or more of personal income taxes just to pay interest.”
He continued:
“The debt downgrades mean the province will have to pay more in interest—likely 1/4 to 1/2% more. On $220+ billion, that could mean $1 billion more in interest. That could be about $200 per man, woman and child annually in more interest by 2027.”
And with no plan to rein in spending, Rustad issued a stark warning:
“The compounding problem is: will this mean service cuts, more taxes, or yet more debt to be paid by our children?”
Final Thoughts
So here’s a question no one on CBC is going to ask: What actually happens when a progressive government can’t manage a budget? I’ll tell you. You get poorer. That’s what happens. You, the person who gets up every day and works a real job, pays the price while the people in charge keep living large off your labour.
Let’s walk through it. First, you pay provincial income tax—a tax just for working. Imagine that. You go out, earn a living, and the government takes a cut just because you dared to be productive. Then there’s the PST—you buy something, anything, and you get taxed again. Why? Because you had the audacity to participate in the economy.
And then there’s the carbon tax, the holy grail of progressive grifts. This wasn’t about saving the planet—it was about propping up the very same government that couldn’t manage a piggy bank, let alone a provincial budget. That tax was floating David Eby’s spending addiction. Now it’s gone, and surprise—there’s no plan to replace it. Just more debt, more interest, and more economic chaos.
But wait—here’s the part that really insults your intelligence. After taxing you into the ground, they turn around and say, “Don’t worry, we’ll give you a rebate.” A rebate? You mean you’re going to give me back a tiny fraction of the money you stole from me and act like you’re doing me a favour? Please. That’s not generosity—it’s gaslighting. It’s economic abuse wrapped in a government cheque.
And that’s why I keep saying it: fiscal responsibility matters. Because I’d rather have that money in my wallet, feeding my kids, paying my bills, building my future—than watching David Eby burn it on pet projects, political theatre, and bloated bureaucracy.
But here’s the thing—there is hope. It’s not all doom and despair. In the last election, something incredible happened. The BC Conservatives, a party written off by the elites and ignored by the media, pulled off a political miracle. They surged from obscurity to contention—why? Because regular people are waking up. Because the voters who pay the bills, raise the kids, and still believe in common sense are done being treated like ATMs for a government that doesn’t even pretend to respect them.
And maybe—just maybe—after a little more pain, after a little more David Eby-style financial recklessness, the voters of this province will finally realize why fiscal responsibility matters. Not because it sounds good in a press release, but because without it, your future vanishes. Your freedom shrinks. And the people in charge? They just keep spending.
So next time, when the ballots are counted and the smoke clears, maybe British Columbia will finally remember who this province belongs to—not to bureaucrats, not to activists, not to the political class in Victoria—but to you.
And that day can’t come soon enough.
Business
California planning to double film tax credits amid industry decline

From The Center Square
By
California legislators have unveiled a bill to follow through with the governor’s plan of more than doubling the state’s film and TV production tax credits to $750 million.
The state’s own analysis warns it’s likely the refundable production credits generate only 20 to 50 cents of state revenue for every dollar the state spends, and the increase could stoke a “race to the bottom” among the 38 states that now have such programs.
Industry insiders say the state’s high production costs are to blame for much of the exodus, and experts say the cost of housing is responsible for a significant share of the higher costs.
The bill creates a special carve-out for shooting in Los Angeles, where productions would be able to claim refundable credits for 35% of the cost of production.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his proposal last year and highlighted his goal of expanding the program at an industry event last week.
“California is the entertainment capital of the world – and we’re committed to ensuring we stay that way,” said Newsom. “Fashion and film go hand in hand, helping to express characters, capture eras in time and reflect cultural movements.”
With most states now offering production credits, economic analysis suggests these programs now produce state revenue well below the cost of the credits themselves.
“A recent study from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation found that each $1 of Program 2.0 credit results in $1.07 in new state and local government revenue. This finding, however, is significantly overstated due to the study’s use of implausible assumptions,” wrote the state’s analysts in a 2023 report. “Most importantly, the study assumes that no productions receiving tax credits would have filmed here in the absence of the credit.”
“This is out of line with economic research discussed above which suggests tax credits influence location decisions of only a portion of recipients,” continued the state analysis. “Two studies that better reflect this research finding suggest that each $1 of film credit results in $0.20 to $0.50 of state revenues.”
“Parks and Recreation” stars Rob Lowe and Adam Scott recently shared on Lowe’s podcast how costs are so high their show likely would have been shot in Europe instead.
“It’s cheaper to bring 100 American people to Ireland than to walk across the lot at Fox past the sound stages and do it and do it there,” said Lowe.
“Do you think if we shot ‘Parks’ right now, we would be in Budapest?” asked Scott, who now stars in “Severance.”
“100%,” replied Lowe. “All those other places are offering 40% — forty percent — and then on top of that there’s other stuff that they do, and then that’s not even talking about the union stuff. That’s just tax economics of it all.”
“It’s criminal what California and LA have let happen. It’s criminal,” continued Lowe. “Everybody should be fired.”
According to the Public Policy Institute of California, housing is the single largest expense for California households.
“Across the income spectrum, 35–44% of household expenditures go to covering rent, mortgages, utilities and home maintenance,” wrote PPIC.
The cost of housing due to supply constraints now makes it nearly impossible for creatives to get their start in LA, said M. Nolan Gray, legislative director at housing regulatory reform organization California YIMBY.
“Hollywood depends on Los Angeles being the place where anybody can show up, take a big risk, and pursue their dreams, and that only works if you have a lot of affordable apartments,” said Gray to The Center Square. “We’ve built a Los Angeles where you have to be fabulously wealthy to have stable and decent housing, and as a result a lot of folks either are not coming, or those who are coming need to paid quite a bit higher to make it worth it, and it’s destroying one of California’s most important industries.”
“Anybody who arrived in Hollywood before the 2010s, their story is always, ‘Yeah, I showed up in LA, and I lived in a really, really dirt-cheap apartment with like $10 in my pocket.’ That just doesn’t exist anymore,” continued Gray. “Does the Walt Disney of 2025 not take the train from Kansas City to LA? Almost certainly not. If he goes anywhere, he goes to Atlanta.”
-
2025 Federal Election23 hours ago
WEF video shows Mark Carney pushing financial ‘revolution’ based on ‘net zero’ goals
-
Crime2 days ago
First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Three cheers for Poilievre’s alcohol tax cut
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
‘Coordinated and Alarming’: Allegations of Chinese Voter Suppression in 2021 Race That Flipped Toronto Riding to Liberals and Paul Chiang
-
Break The Needle1 day ago
Why psychedelic therapy is stuck in the waiting room
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Don’t let the Liberals fool you on electric cars
-
International2 days ago
Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns