Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Green Energy or Green Grift? SDTC at the Center of a $38 Million Scandal

Published

24 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

The Auditor General’s report reveals millions in taxpayer funds funneled to insiders, with government officials shrugging off responsibility. Andrew Noseworthy’s testimony in PCAP

Conflicts of Interest, Negligence, and Liberal Mismanagement Unveiled

In yet another stunning display of Liberal mismanagement, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) has found itself at the center of a growing scandal. The Auditor General’s recent report revealed systemic conflicts of interest and gross negligence in handling taxpayer money—conflicts that funneled millions of dollars to companies connected to SDTC board members.

The controversy reached new heights during a heated Public Accounts Committee meeting, where Andrew Noseworthy, a former assistant deputy minister, was grilled over his role as the government’s “eyes and ears” on the SDTC board. His testimony wasn’t just underwhelming—it was a masterclass in buck-passing.

Here’s Andrew Noseworthy’s opening statement, boiled down: “I was there, but I wasn’t responsible. I saw things, but I didn’t do anything about them. It wasn’t my job to actually oversee anything, and even though I was supposed to be the government’s eyes and ears, somehow, I missed all the obvious corruption right in front of me.”

Are you kidding me? This guy sat in board meetings where millions of dollars—your tax dollars—were being funneled to companies with clear, blatant conflicts of interest. He says, “I wasn’t a decision-maker, I was just an observer.” Observer of what? A train wreck of mismanagement? The deputy minister calls him the “eyes and ears” on the board, and yet he’s playing dumb when asked about conflicts of interest that were declared, minuted, and repeatedly ignored.

But wait—it gets better. When pressed about COVID-19 relief payments—$38 million handed out like party favors—he just shrugs and says there was “urgency.” Urgency to do what? Bail out friends and allies under the guise of saving the clean tech sector? No proper due diligence, no accountability. Just money flying out the door to keep the Trudeau administration’s cronies happy.

And this guy wants us to believe he wasn’t complicit? That he had no responsibility? The buck stops nowhere, apparently—not with Noseworthy, not with SDTC, not with the Liberal government that created this green slush fund in the first place.

This is exactly what you get with Trudeau’s “green energy” initiatives. It’s not about the environment; it’s about lining the pockets of insiders and calling it progress. Canadians deserve better. But under Trudeau, this is just another day in the swamp.

Now let’s get into the Public Accounts Committee’s Meeting 145, starting with Rick Perkins and his fiery takedown of this shameless display of negligence. Buckle up, folks, because it only gets worse from here.

Rick Perkins Exposes Liberal Rot

 

Here’s the scene: Conservative MP Rick Perkins goes on the offensive, trying to get a straight answer out of Andrew Noseworthy. And what does he find? A human shrug emoji. Noseworthy, the so-called “eyes and ears” of the Deputy Minister at SDTC, claims he sat in meetings, watched directors funnel taxpayer money into their own companies, and thought, “Not my problem!”

Perkins doesn’t let up. He reads the SDTC Act aloud: “No director shall profit or gain any income.” It’s not rocket science, folks. It’s the law. But Noseworthy’s excuse? He didn’t have an “independent way” of assessing conflicts of interest. What?! The conflicts were declared in the meetings! The minutes even said, “Here’s who’s conflicted. Here’s who’s getting millions of dollars.” Yet Noseworthy insists he couldn’t connect the dots.

Then Perkins drops the hammer. He points to André-Lise Mato, a Liberal insider who raked in $10.4 million for companies she’s connected to—all in direct violation of the SDTC Act. And what does Noseworthy say? He assumed recusal was enough. Recusal! As if stepping out of the room while your cronies vote to line your pockets somehow makes it okay.

But the pièce de résistance is when Perkins asks Noseworthy the million-dollar question: “Who are you covering up for?” And what does Noseworthy do? He throws up his hands and says he didn’t know it was his job to report conflicts. His job was apparently to sit there and watch taxpayer dollars burn while doing nothing.

Here’s the bottom line: This isn’t oversight—it’s willful negligence. Noseworthy didn’t miss the corruption; he just didn’t care.

Liberal Damage Control: Valarie Bradford Plays Defense

After Rick Perkins rips Andrew Noseworthy apart for his role in enabling millions of taxpayer dollars to be funneled into the pockets of Liberal insiders, here comes Valarie Bradford—stepping in with a velvet glove to do damage control. And folks, it’s laughable.

Instead of holding Noseworthy accountable, Bradford throws him a lifeline. She asks him to—what?—clarify his role again? As if we haven’t heard it already. Noseworthy, ever the bureaucrat, drones on about “policy coordination” and how he wasn’t there to actually do anything, just to… exist, apparently.

And then Bradford takes it a step further. She asks him about the conflict of interest process. Noseworthy assures her, “Oh, don’t worry, board members declared their conflicts and left the room.” Oh, really? They declared their conflicts before approving millions of dollars for their own companies? And that’s fine because they recused themselves? What kind of clown world are we living in where this is acceptable?

But Bradford doesn’t press him. Nope, instead, she shifts the focus to COVID-19. According to Noseworthy, the clean tech sector was in a “state of crisis.” Markets collapsing, capital drying up, supply chains falling apart—it’s the same sob story they always trot out to justify throwing taxpayer money out the window. What he doesn’t mention? That $38 million in COVID-19 funds went out with no proper oversight or accountability. Were they saving the sector or just padding their friends’ pockets?

And then, the cherry on top: Bradford asks Noseworthy to wax poetic about Canada’s “potential” in the clean tech sector. Of course, Noseworthy obliges, talking about how promising the industry is and how Canada can be a global leader. Sure, it’s easy to sound optimistic when you’ve just described how billions of dollars are wasted propping up a system riddled with corruption.

Here’s the truth: This wasn’t a real line of questioning. It was a performance—an attempt to clean up the mess Perkins just exposed. Bradford wasn’t there to get answers. She was there to protect the Liberals’ green slush fund and keep the gravy train running. It’s not accountability; it’s theater.

Bloc Asks the $38 Million dollar question

 

Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné took Noseworthy to task, and folks, it wasn’t pretty. She grilled him on the $38 million in COVID-19 payments that SDTC threw around like Monopoly money, completely outside the rules of their contribution agreements. And Noseworthy? He admitted he knew these payments didn’t comply. But don’t worry, he flagged it to the Deputy Minister. And then what? Nothing. Just more hand-wringing about how it wasn’t his job to actually enforce the rules.

But Sinclair-Desgagné didn’t let him off the hook. She drove home the point that Noseworthy’s entire salary—paid for by taxpayers—was supposed to fund oversight and accountability. Instead, we got a guy sitting in meetings, nodding along, and then shrugging when asked about the massive breaches happening under his nose.

And let’s talk about that bioreactor project she brought up. A piece of equipment worth $6.2 million somehow ended up costing over $8 million—an extra couple million dollars that just poof! disappeared into the ether. When pressed, Noseworthy said, “Oh, I didn’t know the financing details.” Of course not. That would require actually doing his job.

Here’s the kicker: Sinclair-Desgagné asked the hard question everyone’s thinking—“How could you, as a public servant, let taxpayers get ripped off like this?” And Noseworthy’s answer was the same tired song and dance: “It wasn’t my responsibility.”

Let’s be honest. This guy wasn’t a watchdog. He was a lapdog, sitting there to give the appearance of oversight while turning a blind eye to corruption. Taxpayer dollars were wasted, contribution agreements were ignored, and Noseworthy’s excuse? “Not my job.”

Sinclair-Desgagné nailed it: Canadians pay public servants like Noseworthy to protect their interests, not to act as human rubber stamps for Trudeau’s green slush fund. But instead, we’re left with millions of dollars missing, projects overinflated, and a government official who thinks shrugging is a valid defense.

NDP’s Missed Opportunity: Softball Questions Fall Short

Richard Cannings, the NDP’s mild-mannered investigator, gently tiptoeing around the real issues. Instead of holding Andrew Noseworthy’s feet to the fire, Cannings basically hands him a pillow. “Could you kindly explain your role again?” Really? How many times does Noseworthy have to repeat the same nonsense before people realize it’s a dodge?

Noseworthy again plays the broken record: “I wasn’t responsible. I didn’t have oversight. I was just there for policy coordination.” Sure, because policy coordination is what taxpayers are worried about when $38 million is being funneled into friends’ pockets during the COVID-19 “crisis.”

And then Cannings digs into conflicts of interest, asking if board members who declared conflicts actually stayed for discussions or left the room. Noseworthy assures him, “Oh, they usually recused themselves.” Usually? That’s reassuring! But the real kicker? Noseworthy claims he never witnessed violations. Never. Despite the Auditor General uncovering 186 conflicts, Noseworthy saw nothing. Blind? Or just complicit?

But wait—it gets better. Cannings asks about the process for approving projects. Noseworthy proudly describes a system where the Project Review Committee does all the heavy lifting and the board just rubber-stamps their work. Cannings doesn’t even challenge him on the obvious: if this committee is the gatekeeper, where’s the oversight? Who’s accountable? Clearly not Noseworthy.

And then we get to the $38 million in COVID-19 payments, the scandal at the heart of all this. Does Cannings press Noseworthy on the illegality of handing out taxpayer money without following contribution agreements? Nope. Instead, he lets Noseworthy ramble on about the “urgency” of the pandemic as if that justifies blatant mismanagement.

Here’s the truth: Cannings had a chance to demand answers, but instead, he gave Noseworthy the opportunity to spin the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 minutes. “I didn’t know.” “It wasn’t my job.” Give me a break. This isn’t accountability; it’s a softball game.

Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve someone who will actually stand up and say, “This is corruption, plain and simple.” But instead, we get Cannings politely nodding along while the Liberals laugh all the way to the bank. This is why Canadians are so frustrated with government—it’s all talk, no action.

Conservative Michael Cooper Turns Up the Heat

 

Michael Cooper didn’t just ask Andrew Noseworthy questions—he eviscerated him. If Rick Perkins set the tone, Cooper turned the heat all the way up. And the question at the heart of this whole fiasco? “How could you sit through board meetings where directors blatantly violated the SDTC Act and say nothing?”

Cooper pulled no punches. He read section 12 of the SDTC Act aloud: “No director shall profit or gain any income.” It’s crystal clear, right? But then there’s André-Lise Mato—an SDTC board member—walking away with $10.4 million for her companies. That’s not a conflict of interest, folks. That’s a crime.

And what does Noseworthy say? Oh, “I assumed recusals were enough.” Really? Since when does stepping out of the room magically erase the fact that you’re breaking the law? Cooper wasn’t buying it, and neither should Canadians.

But wait—it gets worse. Noseworthy claims it wasn’t his job to report these violations, even though he was literally the Deputy Minister’s “eyes and ears” at SDTC. What was his job, then? Warming a chair? Collecting a paycheck? Because it sure wasn’t holding anyone accountable.

Here’s the truth: Noseworthy wasn’t just complicit; he was an enabler. He sat there, meeting after meeting, watching millions of taxpayer dollars flow into the hands of Liberal insiders. And when pressed on why he didn’t do anything, his defense is essentially, “It wasn’t my problem.”

Cooper nailed it. This isn’t just bureaucratic incompetence; it’s systemic corruption. The SDTC Act was broken. Taxpayer money was stolen. And Noseworthy sat there, twiddling his thumbs, while the Liberals ran their green energy slush fund like a cash cow for their friends.

Kelly McCauley’s Exposé: The Buck Stops Nowhere

Kelly McCauley followed up with Cooper and he wasn’t there to play games, folks. He walked in with the facts, and he left no room for excuses. For six straight minutes, McCauley dismantled Andrew Noseworthy’s entire defense, piece by piece, and what did we learn? That the buck doesn’t stop anywhere in Trudeau’s government.

First, McCauley establishes the obvious: Noseworthy worked closely with the Deputy Minister for years. They had meetings, they had conversations, but somehow, Noseworthy never thought to mention the glaring conflicts of interest happening right in front of him. Why? Because he “didn’t think it was his job.” Of course not! Why do your job when you can just collect a paycheck and look the other way?

Then McCauley goes for the jugular. He asks why Noseworthy didn’t report these conflicts to the Minister, as required by Article 20.03 of the contribution agreement. And what does Noseworthy say? “Oh, I assumed the board was handling it.” Right. The same board handing out millions of dollars to its own members was “handling” the conflicts. That’s like letting the fox guard the henhouse and then acting surprised when feathers are flying.

And let’s not forget the whistleblower. A lower-level public servant had the courage to come forward and expose the rot at SDTC. But Noseworthy? The Deputy Minister’s “eyes and ears”? He sat in the room, watched the corruption unfold, and did absolutely nothing. McCauley makes it clear: this isn’t just incompetence—it’s a complete failure of accountability.

But here’s the real kicker: Noseworthy keeps saying, “It wasn’t my role.” Not his role to oversee conflicts. Not his role to report violations. Not his role to ensure taxpayers’ money wasn’t being flushed down the drain. So, what was his role? To show up and nod along while Trudeau’s Liberal insiders cashed in?

McCauley’s cross-examination exposes the truth about this government: no one takes responsibility because the system is designed to protect the corrupt. Millions of dollars, your dollars, are gone. And Noseworthy? He’s not apologizing. He’s not taking ownership. He’s passing the buck like it’s an Olympic sport.

This is Trudeau’s Canada, folks. A government where “accountability” is a dirty word, and taxpayer money is a slush fund for insiders. McCauley pulled back the curtain, but unless people like Noseworthy are held accountable, the swamp isn’t draining anytime soon.

Final Verdict: A Government Designed to Protect Corruption

What was this guy’s job? I’ll tell you what his job was: to be a useful idiot for the board. That’s it. A rubber-stamp figurehead who sat in the room to give the illusion of oversight. “Look, we have checks and balances!” they’d say. But in reality, Noseworthy’s only responsibility was to collect his taxpayer-funded paycheck and look the other way while corruption ran wild.

Let’s be clear: It doesn’t take a Ph.D., a law degree, or even a high school diploma to know that when taxpayer dollars are being funneled into board members’ pockets, you REPORT IT. You stand up and say, “This is wrong!” But not Noseworthy. Nope, he just shrugged, collected his salary, and moved on. Why? Because that’s the system—designed by Trudeau’s Liberals to enable the swamp to thrive.

This guy sat through meetings where conflicts of interest were openly discussed. He saw money being handed out like candy to insiders, and his excuse is, “Well, I didn’t think it was my job.” Really? Then why were you there? Why did Canadians pay for your salary, your benefits, your pension, if you weren’t going to do the bare minimum and speak up?

Let me say it plainly: This guy needs to be charged. The SDTC Act was broken—repeatedly—and he was complicit. He may not have pocketed the money himself, but he enabled the system that let it happen. And as a taxpayer, I want every single dollar that went to him reimbursed.

Because here’s the reality: This isn’t just about Andrew Noseworthy. This is about a government that has normalized corruption, where accountability is dead, and where public servants think their only job is to protect the Liberal swamp. Canadians deserve better. And it starts by holding people like Noseworthy accountable—because if we don’t, the message is clear: corruption pays.

Business

The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”

Published on

A tax expert on the departed Digital Services Tax, and the fiscal and policy holes it leaves behind

It’s fun, and fair, arguing whether Mark Carney “caved” in suspending the application of Canada’s Digital Services Tax to revive broader negotiations with the Trump administration. But I figure there are other dimensions to this issue besides tactics. So I got in touch with Allison Christians, a tax law professor at McGill University and the founding director of the Canadian Centre for Tax Policy.

In our talk, Christians discusses the policy landscape that led to the introduction of the DST; the pressure that contributed to its demise; and the ways other countries are addressing a central contradiction of the modern policy landscape: without some kind of digital tax, countries risk having to impose costs on their own digital industry that the overwhelmingly US-based multinationals can avoid.

I spoke to Christians on Friday. Her remarks are edited for length and clarity.


 

Paul Wells: I noticed in your social media that you express inordinate fondness for tax law.

Allison Christians: You will not find a more passionate adherent to the tax cult than me. Yes, I do. I love tax law. Of course I do. How could you not? How could you not love tax law?

PW: What’s to love about tax law?

Christians: Well, tax law is how we create our country. That’s how we build our society. That’s how we create the communities that we want to live in and the lifestyle that we want to share with our neighbours. That’s how: with tax law.

PW: I guess the goal [of tax policy] is to generate the largest amount of revenue with the smallest amount of grief? And to send social signals while you’re at it. Is that right?

Christians: I don’t think so. Tax is not about raising maximum revenue. Tax is about deciding what society you’re trying to build and what portions of that society need to be made public, and what can be left to private interests which then need to profit. So we have decided in Canada, as a country, that basic minimum healthcare cannot be a for-profit enterprise. It has to be a public enterprise in order to make sure that it works for everybody to a certain basic level. So tax is about making those decisions: are we going to privatize everything and everyone pays for their own health care, security, roads, insurance, fire department etc. And if they can’t pay, then too bad? Or are we going to have a certain minimum, and that minimum is going to be provided in a public way that harmonizes across the communities that we have. And that’s what tax is about. It’s not about extracting revenue at all. It’s about creating revenue. It’s about creating a market. It’s about investing in a community. So I just object to the whole idea that tax is about extracting something from me, because what tax is doing is creating a market for me to be able to thrive. Not just me, but all of my neighbours, as well.

PW: Let’s jump forward to the events of the past couple weeks. Were you surprised when the Prime Minister suspended the Digital Services Tax?

Christians: I think “surprise” is probably too strong of a word, because nothing any political leader does to cope with the volatility of the United States would surprise me. We are dealing with a major threat, a threat that is threatening to annex us, to take our resources, to take our sovereignty, to take our communities and rip them apart and turn them into a different way of being. And that’s a serious threat. So nothing would surprise me in response to that. Disappointed, of course. But not disappointed in our Canadian response. More disappointed in the juggernaut that Trump has been allowed to become by his base, and that they’re pulling the rug out from under everyone that’s cooperated with the US agenda for decades, including us.

PW: What’s your best understanding of what the Digital Services Tax was designed to accomplish? And is it unusual as taxes go?

Christians: So to understand this, you really have to be a policy wonk, which isn’t much fun. So I’m gonna give you an example that might make it clear from the perspective of Canada. Why we might have a Digital Service Tax or might want something like it.

I want to preface this by saying that the Digital Service Tax is by no means the only way to do the underlying things we want to accomplish. Certainly other countries have been collecting DSTs and have been collecting billions of dollars, and US companies have had reserves for paying that Digital Service Tax. So we just left money on the table. But let me try to explain why we want to do the thing without getting too “tax nerdy” on you.

So I’m sure you can come up with the one Canadian company that’s streaming content on television or on digital devices.

PWCrave?

Christians: Yeah, that’s the one. Crave is owned by Bell Media and is a Canadian company. And Crave pays taxes in Canada. Crave has to compete against Netflix, which does not have to pay tax in Canada. Netflix just simply doesn’t have to pay the same way that Crave does unless we force them to pay. Crave has to compete with US and foreign content streamers. We may get to a point where we can get Netflix to collect some sales tax on the GST, for example. But if Netflix itself stays out of Canada, physically, but it’s still getting all those customers that otherwise Crave would have access to, then Crave is at a structural disadvantage.

Now tell me which Canadian provider competes with Google.

PW: I can’t think of one.

Christians: Exactly. There isn’t one. How are we supposed to get a homegrown competitor when our competition simply does not pay taxes, and any one we would grow here in Canada has to pay tax here? So we have to understand the Digital Service Tax as simply our response to the fact that we normally do not tax a company unless they are physically located in Canada. But now we’ve got to go into this digital space and say: you’re still here, even if we can’t see you and talk to you, you’re still here. You’re doing something in our market. And that’s what the Digital Service Tax was trying to deal with.

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

PW: Now, how are companies likely to respond to this Digital Services Tax? It seems to me the likeliest outcome would be that they would pass those costs on to their customers.

Christians: Yes, that is what companies have said they would do. Google talked about passing those costs on to the customers. And their customers obviously are advertisers. I want to point out that advertisers in Canada used to advertise in local newspapers and media. Now they advertise on Facebook, owned by an American-headquartered Company, Meta. Right now, they advertise on those foreign platforms, so we don’t have those advertising dollars here. Advertisers might have had to pay the Digital Service Tax if Google, or whoever, had passed it on to them. I think it’s fair to say, that Canadians advertising on those foreign platforms would have faced a gross-up to cover that tax.

PW: So, the net effect is that it just becomes more expensive for Canadian consumers. I’ve seen it argued that all this tax would have succeeded in doing is making Netflix more expensive.

Christians: Okay, that’s possible. I mean, that assumes the supply is totally elastic: you can increase the price of Netflix, and people will still pay it indefinitely. Right? So that’s the assumption in the short term. But the long-term assumption is that Crave becomes more competitive — because its competitors are paying the same tax that it is paying. The Crave subscription price may or may not respond, but if you put pressure on the foreign service providers in the same manner that’s on the Canadian providers, it might cost more, but we’re also getting the tax.

PW: I believe the Prime Minister, in an interview with the CBC said that he was thinking of getting rid of this thing, anyway. [The quote I’m reaching for here is: “Look, what we did this week is something that I think we were going to do anyways, in the end, for the deal.” At 1:07 in this video. — pw] Why do you think he would have been leaning in that direction? And do you think that absent a Truth Social post by President Trump, he actually would have gotten rid of the thing?

Christians: I can’t speculate too much about the politics of this, because I’m not talking to many of the people that make policy, but I know the complaints about the DST, and I don’t dispute them. It was going to be a complicated tax to collect and it was going to be messy in terms of compliance. There’s a lot of uncertainty around the tax and I know there’s always an enormous amount of pressure to reduce all taxes. There’s always going to be that segment of society that sees taxes being thrown down the drain and not as an investment in the society that we want to live in.

Share

American companies are famous for investing their money on lobbying and not in taxes. They spend their money convincing us that it would be bad for us to tax them, and they can spend a much smaller percentage of their money on lobbying and get us to believe that narrative. And the narrative is that somehow, if we tax Google, Google will go away and we won’t be able to use it. That Google won’t innovate. It’s nonsense, but it’s a story that resonates nonetheless. Was Prime Minister Carney pressured to get rid of the DST? Undoubtedly. And maybe he personally thinks there’s a better way to tax these companies than with an excise tax. I don’t fault him for thinking that. I have even written that there are better ways for Canada to collect this tax than the Digital Services Tax.

PW: I’m going to want you to tell me about these other ways. But I assume that if a Canadian government attempts any of these other ways, then the companies we’re talking about know that all they have to do is hit the Trump button and the pressure will be right back on.

Christians: That’s correct. There are a couple of [alternatives to the DST]. We could, like some other countries have done, redefine the types of income that we subject to withholding taxes in Canada. It’s a complicated technical idea, but basically any payments that go from our advertisers to Google, we could impose a withholding tax simply by expanding a couple of definitions in the Income Tax Act that would then carry over into our treaty. Now, people will push back on that, and say that you’re changing a deal, and people will object to that. And we can have an argument about that, but that possibility exists. That withholding tax is the most straightforward way to do this and we should probably already be thinking about it.

Another one that’s kind of fun, which I really enjoyed learning about when I came to Canada, is Section 19 in the Income Tax Act. So, Canadian advertisers are paying Google now, instead of a Canadian newspaper. Well, Section 19 basically says that whenever someone makes a payment for advertising to a foreign, non-Canadian media, that payment’s not deductible.

Now that provision seems to violate Free Trade rules because it changes, depending on who you make the payment to. But it’s a provision in law. The US objected to it when we adopted it by imposing a reciprocal tax on US advertisers paying Canadian outlets, which doesn’t seem to bother anybody.

PW: But the application of that will be very asymmetrical, right?

Christians: Yes, for sure. And I’ll tell you what the Canadian media noticed when we started paying for digital newspapers online: that they’re not subject to Section 19 — only print and traditional media are subject to this denial of deduction — and Canadian media advocated for this denial of deduction for online publications as well.

All you have to do is look at the wording of Section 19 — and you don’t even have to change the words — and all of a sudden all those payments to Google are not deductible. But if the payments were to Crave, they would be deductible, and if they are to the Globe and Mail, or other Canadian companies, they would be deductible. That is a different kind of advantage for the Canadian competitor that’s a little less susceptible to Trump’s understanding, and a little less susceptible to the politics that surround the Digital Services Tax. But it’s technical. You have to explain it to people, and they don’t believe you. It’s hard to understand it.

PW: Theoretically a two-time central-bank governor could wrap his head around it.

Christians: Yes, I think he could fully understand it, for sure. You’re absolutely right. Will he want to do it, though? I just don’t know.

PW: You said that there are other jurisdictions that continue, today, to successfully tax the web giants. Who are you thinking of?

Christians: Well, Austria’s been doing the Digital Service Tax since the beginning. The UK has the Diverted Profits Tax that they’ve been using. Australia has one that’s been enforced. Austria stands out because I think it was 2017, in Trump’s 1st term, and it was part of a group that Trump threatened to retaliate against, but they just quietly kept going and they’re still collecting it. Part of the narrative is that we, Canada, came too late to the DST party. We just weren’t part of that initial negotiation. We came in too late, and then it was too obvious, and people were able to isolate us from the pack.

PW: My understanding is we’re looking at a hypothetical $7.2 billion in revenue over 5 years. And that represents a shortfall that’s going to have to be found either in other revenue sources or in spending cuts, or in greater debt. Aside from the DST, do you think Canada could use a general overhaul of its tax code?

Christians: Always. Yes, absolutely! Taxes are funny, right? Because they come into every single political battle, and what ends up happening is that politicians treat the Tax Act and the tax system as a present-giving machinery, and not as a clear policy deliverance system.

I am, every day, surprised at how complicated the Canadian tax system is. It’s way too complicated. You can’t even fill out your own tax return in this country. You’re going to make mistakes because it’s just too ridiculously written. It’s too confusing. It’s too messy. So it’s time to take another look. But you need a commission [like the 1962 Carter royal commission on taxation]. You need to be bipartisan. You need to spend money on that. You need to think that the things that you do have long-term effects, and this takes political courage. And basically it requires upsetting a bunch of people and resetting things, and we just might not be at the right time politically to be doing that because people feel vulnerable to volatility from abroad. So it may not be the time to push that.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Paul Wells, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

Dallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’

Published on

From The Center Square

By

After the self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor in New York, Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson invited New Yorkers and others to move to Dallas.

Mamdani has vowed to implement a wide range of tax increases on corporations and property and to “shift the tax burden” to “richer and whiter neighborhoods.”

New York businesses and individuals have already been relocating to states like Texas, which has no corporate or personal income taxes.

Johnson, a Black mayor and former Democrat, switched parties to become a Republican in 2023 after opposing a city council tax hike, The Center Square reported.

“Dear Concerned New York City Resident or Business Owner: Don’t panic,” Johnson said. “Just move to Dallas, where we strongly support our police, value our partners in the business community, embrace free markets, shun excessive regulation, and protect the American Dream!”

Fortune 500 companies and others in recent years continue to relocate their headquarters to Dallas; it’s also home to the new Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE). The TXSE will provide an alternative to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq and there are already more finance professionals in Texas than in New York, TXSE Group Inc. founder and CEO James Lee argues.

From 2020-2023, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA reported the greatest percentage of growth in the country of 34%, The Center Square reported.

Johnson on Thursday continued his invitation to New Yorkers and others living in “socialist” sanctuary cities, saying on social media, “If your city is (or is about to be) a sanctuary for criminals, mayhem, job-killing regulations, and failed socialist experiments, I have a modest invitation for you: MOVE TO DALLAS. You can call us the nation’s first official ‘Sanctuary City from Socialism.’”

“We value free enterprise, law and order, and our first responders. Common sense and the American Dream still reside here. We have all your big-city comforts and conveniences without the suffocating vice grip of government bureaucrats.”

As many Democratic-led cities joined a movement to defund their police departments, Johnson prioritized police funding and supporting law and order.

“Back in the 1800s, people moving to Texas for greater opportunities would etch ‘GTT’ for ‘Gone to Texas’ on their doors moving to the Mexican colony of Tejas,” Johnson continued, referring to Americans who moved to the Mexican colony of Tejas to acquire land grants from the Mexican government.

“If you’re a New Yorker heading to Dallas, maybe try ‘GTD’ to let fellow lovers of law and order know where you’ve gone,” Johnson said.

Modern-day GTT movers, including a large number of New Yorkers, cite high personal income taxes, high property taxes, high costs of living, high crime, and other factors as their reasons for leaving their states and moving to Texas, according to multiple reports over the last few years.

In response to Johnson’s invitation, Gov. Greg Abbott said, “Dallas is the first self-declared “Sanctuary City from Socialism. The State of Texas will provide whatever support is needed to fulfill that mission.”

The governor has already been doing this by signing pro-business bills into law and awarding Texas Enterprise Grants to businesses that relocate or expand operations in Texas, many of which are doing so in the Dallas area.

“Texas truly is the Best State for Business and stands as a model for the nation,” Abbott said. “Freedom is a magnet, and Texas offers entrepreneurs and hardworking Texans the freedom to succeed. When choosing where to relocate or expand their businesses, more innovative industry leaders recognize the competitive advantages found only in Texas. The nation’s leading CEOs continually cite our pro-growth economic policies – with no corporate income tax and no personal income tax – along with our young, skilled, diverse, and growing workforce, easy access to global markets, robust infrastructure, and predictable business-friendly regulations.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X