Connect with us

National

Trudeau clinging like a ‘low-key autocrat’: Jeremy Nuttall

Published

7 minute read

By Jeremy Nuttall

Is Canada looking like a developing nation with a corruption problem and a soft authoritarian regime?

This isn’t normal. Not even close. Even the most eccentric of Prime Ministers in any other commonwealth country would likely be licking their wounds in Ibiza by now, watching the chaos unfold from a safe distance.

Not this Prime Minister. True to form as the head of a micromanaging Prime Minister’s Office, he couldn’t bring himself to step aside. In fact, he still hasn’t.

Trudeau’s stubbornness edges dangerously close to the behavior of a low-key autocrat. He was nowhere to be seen for days as he shrugged off demands to “get lost in the snow.”

Imagine a country with a leader so deeply unpopular within his own party that members, mostly speaking anonymously out of fear, pressured him for months to step down—only for him to deflect with vague promises of “reflection” whenever the pressure mounted.

Imagine that happening against the background of the leader refusing to release documents as ordered by Parliament, at the same time the political landscape is embroiled in a foreign interference scandal. Meanwhile, food bank usage has surged, and concerns over soaring housing costs continue to grow.

Then, after a top minister leaves and drives a stake through his government, that leader circles his most loyal comrades in a bid to fend off the resignation even more before finally admitting defeat.

But even then, after the admission, said leader is still in charge and only promising to resign fully once his successor is chosen, then stopping the work of government at one of the most crucial times in recent history to give himself and his party time to get their affairs in order.

If you had that explained to you without knowing it was Canada, would you think it was a western parliamentary democracy being described, or a developing nation with a corruption problem and a soft authoritarian regime?

Democracies aren’t meant to prioritize the personal interests of government members over the country’s welfare. Yet that’s exactly what Trudeau did by requesting the prorogation of Parliament, giving his Liberals time to strategize for their own political survival.

Meanwhile, for the first few months of a new U.S. administration threatening major tariffs, Canada will be limited in its ability to address whatever happens in the House. With so much at stake, this move seems almost vindictive to a Canadian public who are now rejecting Liberal leadership.

Governor General Mary Simon’s decision to allow this—and the time she took to consider it—deserves scrutiny. The public is owed an explanation.

The Liberal Party’s troubles are not the Canadian public’s troubles, but in proroguing Parliament to deal with them, the Liberals have made them such.

Trudeau’s plan for the country is incoherent, his ministers suddenly have a lot of family obligations, and even columnists who curiously supported him for years too long are now calling for his exit.

Additionally, with him waiting until the Liberals are at their most unpopular ever, the Conservatives—set to win in a landslide no matter what—can control the narrative of the election and claim to have won on any mandate they see fit. The public could be left out of the conversation.

When tallied up, it’s all so awful.

In reality, however abnormal this is, it’s the natural course of where Canadians have allowed their country to end up.

Years of not really getting that upset about anything or realizing that the government and what it does matters are starting to show the real harms a country can be haunted by when it shrugs off the chipping away of its democratic norms by shallow and venal political operatives.

As pressure mounted on Trudeau to resign, his own MPs sheepishly asked for him to step down, an illustration that the PMO holds far too much power over caucus. One was left wondering if a breaking point would happen and MPs would make a grand gesture on behalf of Canadians.

Such a climax never arrived. My incredibly small kingdom for a handful of Liberal MPs with cojones.

The really sad part is, so far, it seems Liberal MPs missed a chance to turn the tide and more forcefully oust Trudeau from the leadership role by any means necessary, even if it meant voting against their own party.

They could have sent a message that democracy is a cumulative effort, not the whims of one person, then followed it up with reasonable changes to party policy to allow for the removal of a leader should such circumstances occur again.

What this has done is set a new low bar. The next power-crazed PMO will have this one as a blueprint to disregard the public and its welfare before pushing the limit even further.

The only bar lower at this point would be if Trudeau goes back on his promise to resign. Yes, it’s a long shot, but considering this guy’s track record of keeping promises—right up there with an absentee father in a daytime drama—I’ll really believe he’s gone when he’s gone.

This is a moment Canadians really need to examine and question if the way their government has been operating is working for them. If it isn’t, a movement for change must spring up.

Dignity, tradition, integrity, the common good—all of these principles risk becoming meaningless unless Canadians begin to take them seriously.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Bureau

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

Business

Carney’s ‘major projects’ list no cause for celebration

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen

Early in his term, Prime Minister Mark Carney placed great emphasis on the need to think big and move quickly, to make Canada the “world’s leading energy superpower.” Recently, the government announced the first group of projects to be championed by its new Major Projects Office (MPO), which was also recently created to circumvent existing rules and regulations to speed up approvals. Unfortunately, the list of projects is decidedly underwhelming, which highlights the need for a true course correction when it comes to fixing Canada’s investment crisis.

According to the government, the purpose of the Major Projects Office is to fast-track “nation building” projects, with a focus on regulatory approvals and financing. Yet, of the first five projects referred to the MPO, regulatory approvals have largely already been secured and the projects were likely to proceed without any intervention or assistance from Ottawa.

For example, many of the regulatory approvals required for the Darlington Small Nuclear Reactor are already in place, and construction has already begun. The McIlvenna Bay copper mine in Saskatchewan is already half-built.

Other projects, such as LNG Phase 2 and the Red Chris Copper Mine, both in British Columbia, are expansions of existing facilities and are backed by industry-leading firms such as Shell and Rio Tinto, respectively. In general, these projects do not need government assistance or financing since they’re already largely approved.

A further six projects being referred to the MPO are at an earlier stage of development, and for the most part do not yet require regulatory approvals. Carney has referred this list—which includes projects ranging from carbon capture to high speed rail to offshore wind—to the MPO to be matched with government “business development teams” to “advance these concepts.”

These initiatives parallel the approach by the Trudeau government to rely on government-directed projects to foster economic growth, which failed miserably. The Trudeau government’s economic policies featured a much larger role for government in the economy, including a general increase in the size and scope of the federal government, as measured by increased spending and regulation. The result? Under Trudeau, annual growth of per-person GDP (an indicator of living standards) was just 0.3 per cent, the worst track record of any recent prime minister. Net business investment (foreign direct investment in Canada minus Canadian direct investment abroad) declined by $388 billion between 2015 and 2023 (the latest year of available data).

To set Canada on a course to reverse the investment crisis, Carney must abandon the notion of government-directed economic growth. Approving projects already largely approved, while sending other less-certain projects to government business development bureaucrats, will not fix Canada’s problem. Simply put, the government should craft policy to create the right conditions for investment and entrepreneurship for all firms in all sectors of the economy, not simply its chosen winners.

To attract the kinds of major projects that will meaningfully improve Canada’s investment crisis, the Carney government should eliminate a host of regulations and reform those that survive. As other analysts have noted, the list of regulatory hurdles in Canada is long. Canada’s total regulatory load has increased substantially over time and across a wide range of industries including energy, autos, child care, supermarkets and more.

Nowhere is this more evident than the energy industry, which is one of the largest drivers of investment in Canada. Federal Bills C-69 and C-48 (which govern the project approval process and ban oil tankers on the west cost, respectively), alongside the federal greenhouse gas emissions cap, net-zero policies, and a host of other regulation such as new fuel standard have significantly constrained this industry, which is vital to Canada’s economic success.

Canada’s regulatory explosion has effectively decimated the country’s investment climate. While Bill C-5 allows cabinet to circumvent these regulations, it places the cabinet, and more specifically the prime minister, in the position of picking winners and losers. Broad-based tax and regulatory reduction and reform would be a much more effective approach.

Canada continues to struggle amid an investment crisis that’s holding back economic growth and living standards. Our country needs bold changes to the policy environment conducive to attracting more investment. The government’s response to date, through Bill C-5 and the MPO, involves making the government more, not less, involved in the economy. The government should reverse course.

Continue Reading

Business

Carney government’s housing GST rebate doesn’t go far enough

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Austin Thompson

While there are many reasons for Canada’s housing affordability crisis, taxes on new homes—including the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST)—remain a major culprit. The Carney government is currently advancing legislation that would rebate GST on some new home purchases, but only for a narrow slice of the market, falling short of what’s needed to improve affordability. A broader GST rebate, extending to more homebuyers and more new homes, would cost Ottawa more, but it would likely deliver better results than the billions the Carney government plans to spend on other housing-related programs.

Today, Ottawa already offers some GST relief for new housing: partial rebates for homes under $450,000, full rebates for small-scale rental units (e.g. condos, townhomes, duplexes) valued under $450,000, and a full rebate for large-scale rental buildings (with no price cap). Rebates can lower costs for homebuyers and encourage more homebuilding. However, at today’s high prices, these rebate programs mean most new homes, and many small-scale rental projects, remain burdened by federal GST.

The Carney government’s new proposal would offer a full GST rebate for new homes—but only for first-time homebuyers purchasing a primary residence at under $1 million (a partial rebate would be available for homes up to $1.5 million). Any tax cut on new housing is welcome, but these criteria are arbitrary and will limit the policy’s impact.

Firstly, by restricting the new GST rebate to first-time buyers, the government ignores how housing markets work. If a retired couple downsizes into a new condo, or a growing family upgrades to a bigger house, they typically free up their previous home for someone else to buy or rent. It doesn’t matter whether the new home is purchased by a first-time buyer—all buyers can benefit when a new home appears on the market.

Secondly, by limiting the GST rebate to primary residences, the government won’t reduce the existing tax burden on rental properties—recall, many small-scale projects still face the full GST burden. Extending the rebate to include rental properties would reduce costs, unlock more construction and expand options for renters.

Thirdly, because the proposed GST rebate only applies in-full to homes under $1 million, it will have little effect in Canada’s most expensive cities. For example, in the first half of 2025, 31.8 per cent of new homes sold in Toronto and 27.4 per cent in Vancouver exceeded $1 million. Taxing these homes discourages homebuilding where it’s most needed.

Altogether, these restrictions mean the Carney proposal would help very few Canadians. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the 237,324 housing units projected to be completed in 2026—the first full year of the proposed GST rebate program—only 12,903 (5.4 per cent) would qualify for the new rebate. With such limited coverage, the policy is unlikely to spur much new housing or improve affordability.

The proposed GST rebate will cost a projected $390 million per year. However, if the Carney government went further and expanded the rebate to cover all new homes under $1.3 million, it would cost about $2 billion. That’s a big price tag, especially given Ottawa’s strained finances, but it would do much more to improve housing affordability.

Instead, the Carney government plans to spend $3 billion annually on “Build Canada Homes”—a misguided federal entity set to compete with private builders for scarce construction resources. The government has earmarked another $1.5 billion per year to subsidize municipal fees on new housing projects—an approach that merely shift costs from city halls to Ottawa. A broader GST rebate would likely be a more effective, lower-risk alternative to these programs.

Finally, it’s important to note that exempting new homes from GST is not a slam dunk. GST is one of the more efficient ways for the federal government to raise revenue, since it doesn’t discourage work or investment as much as other taxes. GST rebates mean the government may increase more economically harmful taxes to recoup the lost revenue. Still, tax relief is a better way to increase housing affordability than the Carney government’s expensive spending programs. In fact, the government should also reform other federal taxes on housing-related capital gains and rental income to help encourage more homebuilding.

The Carney government’s proposed GST rebate is a step in the right direction, but it’s too narrow to meaningfully boost supply or ease affordability. If Ottawa is prepared to spend billions on questionable programs such as “Build Canada Homes,” it should first consider a more expansive GST rebate on new home purchases, which would likely do more to help Canadian homebuyers.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X