Connect with us

Media

Trudeau’s Digital Services Tax threatens taxpayers and the economy

Published

6 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Jay Goldberg

In other words, Trudeau is imposing a multi-billion-dollar tax on taxpayers – at a time when 50 per cent of Canadians say they’re $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau managed to do two terrible things in one fell swoop: raise costs for Canadians at a time they can least afford it and risk a trade war with the United States.

The Trudeau government pushed its new Digital Services Tax through Parliament before quitting for the summer.

The government’s DST targets large foreign companies operating online marketplaces and social media platforms earning revenue from online advertising, such as Amazon, Facebook, Google and Airbnb. It is a three per cent tax on all revenue these companies generate in Canada.

Two red flags should pop up immediately for taxpayers. First, these companies won’t just eat the tax without passing costs onto consumers. And second, the United States government is sure to retaliate.

On the first point, there were clear signs that prices for Canadian consumers would increase because of this tax long before it was passed into law.

When the DST was in its proposal stage, the Parliamentary Budget Officer did an estimate of how much the government’s new tax would cost Canadians.

The PBO estimated the government’s DST would lead to an additional $7.2 billion in federal tax revenue over the next five years.

Where is that money coming from?

While major foreign companies will be the ones paying the tax directly, Canadian consumers will be hit with the bill.

It is “expected that businesses in the targeted sectors will adjust their services and prices in response to the new law,” the PBO said.

In other words, Trudeau is imposing a multi-billion-dollar tax on taxpayers – at a time when 50 per cent of Canadians say they’re $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.

Not only is Trudeau’s new DST going to increase costs for consumers, Canada also risks a trade war with the United States over the tax, which would cost Canadians even more.

In the wake of Trudeau’s DST getting through Parliament, the United States Trade Representative warned the U.S. will “do what’s necessary” to respond to the Trudeau’s new tax. USTR Katharine Tai warns she will look at “all available tools” as part of the U.S. response.

Tai’s isn’t the only voice in the U.S. calling for retaliatory action.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association, which represents tech companies like Amazon, Apple and Uber that will be targeted by Trudeau’s new tax, is calling on the Biden administration to fight back.

“With Canada’s DST now law, the time has come to announce [retaliatory] action,” said the association’s vice president, Jonathan McHale.

The president and CEO of the Tax Foundation is warning that U.S. retaliation would likely come through hiking tariffs on imports from Canada.

Given that the U.S. is by far Canada’s largest trading partner, making it more expensive to get Canadian goods into the American marketplace could have a detrimental impact on Canada’s economy, costing us both economic growth and jobs.

More than two years ago, the USTR warned against the Trudeau government taking measures that “single out American firms for taxation while effectively excluding national firms engaged in similar lines of business.”

But Trudeau chose to ignore those warnings and do exactly that.

To add insult to injury, the law authorizing the Trudeau government to bring the DST into effect (whenever it so chooses) allows it to do so retroactively, all the way back to 2022. Companies could be on the hook for huge sums for tax years in which the law didn’t even exist.

No wonder the Americans are threatening to fight back.

The bottom line is that Trudeau has put Canada in a terrible position. He is risking higher prices for Canadians and tariffs on our exports to the U.S. market, all in a lust for more cash. And the revenue the government is likely to bring in through the DST, an average of $1.4 billion a year, would be spent by this government in just one day.

It’s not too late for Trudeau to back down. Cabinet could choose not to bring the tax into force and avoid retaliation from the US.

For the good of taxpayers and the Canadian economy, Trudeau must abandon the DST.

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

Mainstream media missing in action as YouTuber blows lid off massive taxpayer fraud

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Vice President JD Vance is giving public credit to a YouTube journalist for doing what he says legacy media and elite institutions have failed to do: follow the money in Minnesota. In a post on X, Vance praised independent reporter Nick Shirley for digging into alleged fraud networks tied to the state, saying Shirley “has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 Pulitzer prizes.” The comment was a direct response to a video Shirley shared online documenting what he described as widespread fraud, with Shirley claiming his team identified more than $110 million in suspicious activity in a single day while confronting facilities allegedly receiving millions in public funds.

Shirley’s reporting has been circulating widely among conservatives, with commentators amplifying clips of him visiting supposed daycare and education centers that appeared inactive despite receiving massive federal aid. Conservative media personality Benny Johnson said Shirley had exposed more than $100 million in Minnesota Somali-linked fraud routed through fake daycare and healthcare fronts, adding to the pressure on state leadership. The issue gained further traction after Tom Emmer, Minnesota’s top House Republican, demanded answers from Gov. Tim Walz following a viral clip showing Shirley confronting workers at an alleged daycare in South Minneapolis. Shirley reported the center, called the “Quality Learning Center,” showed no visible activity despite claims it served up to 99 children, and even misspelled “learning” on its signage. As Shirley approached, a woman inside was heard shouting “Don’t open up,” while incorrectly accusing him of being an ICE agent.

The controversy builds on earlier reporting from City Journal, which published a November investigation citing federal counterterrorism sources who said millions of dollars siphoned through Minnesota fraud schemes had been sent overseas, with some of the money allegedly ending up in the hands of Al-Shabaab. One confidential source quoted in the report bluntly claimed, “The largest funder of Al-Shabaab is the Minnesota taxpayer.” Since that report, the scrutiny has widened inside the Trump administration. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced that the Treasury Department is examining whether Minnesota taxpayer funds were diverted to terrorist-linked groups, while Education Secretary Linda McMahon has publicly called on Walz to resign amid separate allegations of large-scale education fraud within the state’s college system.

Taken together, the attention from Vance, congressional Republicans, and multiple federal agencies has elevated Shirley’s reporting from viral internet content to a flashpoint in a broader debate over fraud, accountability, and the role of independent journalists. For the vice president, the message was clear: real accountability sometimes comes not from prize committees or press rooms, but from outsiders willing to ask uncomfortable questions and stand in front of locked doors with a camera rolling.

Largest fraud in US history? Independent Journalist visits numerous daycare centres with no children, revealing massive scam

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

Published on

logo

By

Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are…trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage…about American political controversies…and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
Continue Reading

Trending

X