The “GST Holiday”… A Smokescreen For Scandal

Todayville

Published

7 months ago

6 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

A GST holiday sounded like it might be a good thing, but it turned out to be a gimmick to distract us from more serious issues, writes Marco Navarro-Genie. Courtesy Ivanoh Demers/Radio-Canada

One more racket from a government that rules by racket

The Prime Minister’s proposed GST holiday and $250 rebate scheme, initially estimated at $6.2 billion, is yet another calculated ploy to distract Canadians from the ethical failures of his government. Though the rebate portion was abandoned in Parliament, the GST holiday remains a superficial gesture in a government-induced affordability crisis.

This tactic highlights the government’s willingness to appear generous (with our money) while burdening taxpayers with increased debt to mask corruption and maintain power.

At the heart of this deflection lies the Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) program, dubbed by critics as the “Green Slush Fund.”

The Auditor General recently revealed shocking improprieties within the program. The findings include that the federal ethics office reported at least 90 violations of ethics rules and nearly $400 million handed out to companies linked to SDTC board members. This gross misuse of public funds undermines the program’s goals of fostering green innovation, instead solidifying public skepticism about Ottawa’s ethical compass.

Efforts to hold the government accountable for its mismanagement have faced significant obstruction. Parliament has requested unredacted documents related to the scandal but has been met with resistance from the government. Trudeau’s administration has provided vague justifications for its refusal to comply, citing reasons such as protecting commercial confidentiality and national security.

The Speaker of the House, a Liberal MP, ruled that Parliament has the constitutional right to demand these documents. He ordered the government to release them unredacted. However, weeks have now passed, and the government continues its obstructionist tactics. Parliament has been stalled for weeks, effectively freezing legislative proceedings.

Under parliamentary rules, the House can halt all proceedings until the government complies with the Speaker’s ruling. However, the Speaker lacks direct enforcement power, leaving the opposition parties to hold the line. Last week, the government attempted to submit documents but presented them in a heavily redacted form, further eroding trust.

The standoff highlights the lengths the federal government will go to avoid transparency. By refusing to release the documents, the Liberals undermine Parliament’s authority and delay critical legislative work to protect themselves from scrutiny.

The two-month GST holiday passed with NDP support, removes the GST/HST from:

Prepared foods: Items like pre-made meals and restaurant dining.
Children’s essentials: Clothing, footwear, and diapers.
Select gift items: Categories remain vaguely defined.

However, basic groceries are already GST-exempt. According to food policy expert Sylvain Charlebois, the average Canadian household will save only a few dollars. This gesture is hardly a windfall in the context of surging inflation and housing costs — driven mainly by the government’s policies.

The fundamental aim of the GST holiday is not economic relief but political manipulation. By framing the Conservatives’ refusal to pass the broader $6.2 billion package as heartless, the government seeks to paint the Official Opposition as the Grinch who stole Christmas.

Liberal MPs have already taken to social media to attack the Conservatives for “denying Canadians a tax break.”

The government seems silent about the fact that the Bloc Quebecois also voted against the tax gimmick. Meanwhile, the NDP has shown a willingness to facilitate this naked vote-buying bid, further eroding its credibility as an opposition party.

The Conservatives have remained steadfast, demanding full transparency on the SDTC scandal before regular proceedings in the House can resume. This stance, however, has allowed the Liberals to weaponize affordability relief as a wedge issue.

The GST holiday’s costs, like most federal spending under this government, will disproportionately fall on Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. These three provinces already bear the brunt of federal revenue extraction through resource wealth, only to see their contributions funnelled into vote-rich areas of central Canada to prop up an increasingly unpopular government. The move further stokes resentment in the West, damaging national unity.

How this standoff will resolve is anyone’s guess. The government appears content to drag its feet, betting that public fatigue will weaken opposition resolve. Yet it remains clear that Liberals are willing to misspend billions in borrowed money to hide how they’ve misused hundreds of millions on partisan rewards and cronies. This cynical strategy prioritizes the political survival of their arrangement with the NDP over fiscal responsibility and democratic accountability.

For democracy to function, Parliament must assert its supremacy, hold this minority government to account, and ensure transparency in the face of systemic corruption and mismanagement. The NDP’s collaboration with the offenders may make it impossible, however. Allowing the government to defy Parliament and the Speaker’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent, weakening the foundations of Canadian democracy.

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).

Up Next

Global Affairs Canada goes on real estate spending spree, taxpayers foot the bill

Don't Miss

Canada’s median health-care wait time hits 30 weeks—longest ever recorded

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.