Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

Liberal Patronage: $330 Million in Questionable Allocations at Canada’s Green Tech Agency

Published

16 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

What we learned from the committee is as clear as it is disturbing: Liberal ministers and appointees at SDTC have been funneling taxpayer dollars to friends under the guise of green technology funding.

In a damning House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PACP) meeting, details emerged that Canada’s flagship “green” agency, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), funneled hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into companies connected to Liberal insiders. An Auditor General’s report shed light on the staggering scale of this apparent Liberal patronage scheme, revealing that $330 million was awarded to projects with board members tied to the SDTC itself. Another $59 million found its way into initiatives that didn’t even meet SDTC’s green-tech mandate, fueling accusations of political favoritism and cronyism within Prime Minister Trudeau’s government.

Opposition MPs, led by Conservatives Rick Perkins and Michael Cooper, along with Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné and NDP MP Richard Cannings, took turns dissecting former Liberal Minister Navdeep Bains’ role in appointing Annette Verschuren as SDTC’s board chair. Testimony from the hearing, corroborated by statements from SDTC’s CEO, revealed that Bains reached out to Verschuren multiple times about her appointment, despite his claims of following an “open, transparent, and arm’s-length” process. Yet, when grilled by the opposition, Bains repeatedly invoked “process” and shifted blame onto the Privy Council Office (PCO), claiming he merely encouraged a diverse pool of applicants.

But the evidence doesn’t line up with the former minister’s narrative. Witnesses testified that Assistant Deputy Minister Noseworthy had informed SDTC CEO Leah Lawrence of Verschuren’s appointment even before it was finalized, indicating a behind-the-scenes process driven by Liberal influence. These revelations throw the credibility of the appointment process into question, suggesting it may have been less about selecting qualified candidates and more about ensuring loyal Liberal allies held key positions.

The committee’s findings, sparked by the Auditor General’s investigation, expose a serious issue of conflicts of interest within SDTC’s funding operations. This is a public agency with a mission to advance sustainable development, yet the Liberal government’s management seems to have turned it into a cash machine for insiders. The Auditor General’s report has revealed a troubling pattern of funding allocations going to companies with board connections, undercutting the government’s credibility on environmental stewardship and transparency.

What we learned from the committee is as clear as it is disturbing: Liberal ministers and appointees at SDTC have been funneling taxpayer dollars to friends under the guise of green technology funding. This isn’t just a lapse in oversight; it’s a systematic approach that prioritizes insider deals over real environmental progress, putting the Trudeau government’s commitment to transparency and sustainability squarely in doubt.

Opposition MPs Call Out Lack of Accountability

During this pivotal Public Accounts Committee meeting, opposition MPs went on the offensive, exposing a deep pattern of evasion and mismanagement in how taxpayer dollars were funneled into the hands of Liberal insiders under former Liberal Minister Navdeep Bains. Conservative MPs Rick Perkins and Michael Cooper led the charge, calling out Bains’ deflections and demanding straight answers. They pointed to the $330 million awarded by Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to projects connected to its own board members, questioning why this blatant conflict of interest was permitted under Bains’ watch.

Perkins and Cooper’s approach was blunt. They challenged Bains on his repeated reliance on vague, bureaucratic defenses, pointing out that as minister, he had a duty to exercise oversight on SDTC’s operations. Perkins in particular questioned Bains about his involvement in appointing Annette Verschuren as chair of SDTC’s board. Despite Bains’ claims that he couldn’t “recall” specific discussions with Verschuren, evidence surfaced that he contacted her multiple times prior to her appointment. For Perkins and Cooper, this level of involvement, coupled with Bains’ repeated refusal to acknowledge conflicts of interest within SDTC, painted a damning picture of a Liberal minister who prioritized insider appointments over accountability to Canadian taxpayers.

Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné and NDP MP Richard Cannings focused their questioning on the government’s failure to ensure responsible oversight of SDTC’s environmental funds. Sinclair-Desgagné highlighted Bains’ “arm’s-length” defense as an excuse, given the testimony indicating that senior officials had preemptively informed SDTC’s CEO about Verschuren’s appointment, suggesting an internal network of influence rather than a transparent, merit-based process. She called out the apparent detachment of Bains from SDTC’s operations, underscoring how his office either ignored or bypassed red flags.

NDP MP Cannings raised critical points about the hypocrisy of a government that claims to champion green innovation while allowing SDTC to devolve into a taxpayer-funded favor bank. Cannings pointed out that SDTC’s funds, meant for real environmental progress, were instead granted to projects with questionable ties and little sustainability impact. For Canadians concerned with climate action, Cannings’ questions laid bare the truth: the Liberal government’s commitment to “green” initiatives is far weaker than their dedication to keeping insiders funded.

This unified front by Conservative, Bloc, and NDP MPs highlighted the same disturbing trend: a Liberal government that talks about accountability and climate action but delivers neither, choosing instead to use taxpayer funds to benefit those closest to the party.

Bains’ Defense: Hiding Behind “Process” and Arm’s-Length Excuses

When faced with tough questions on SDTC’s mismanagement, former Liberal Minister Navdeep Bains clung tightly to procedural defenses, repeatedly deflecting responsibility to the Privy Council Office (PCO) and downplaying his role as minister. Bains insisted that the PCO alone was responsible for vetting board members, suggesting his involvement was “hands-off” and strictly procedural. Yet, opposition MPs saw right through this tactic, viewing it as a clear attempt to dodge accountability.

Throughout the hearing, Bains deflected pointed questions by portraying SDTC’s oversight as out of his hands, claiming his office only followed standard processes. He avoided addressing why his appointee, Annette Verschuren, landed the SDTC board chair role despite potential conflicts of interest, with millions later flowing to companies linked to board members. By painting himself as a mere bystander to PCO’s vetting process, Bains sidestepped responsibility for ensuring taxpayer funds went to projects with genuine environmental merit, rather than those benefiting Liberal insiders.

When pressed about specific discussions surrounding Verschuren’s appointment, Bains leaned on what can only be described as selective memory. Asked about his personal involvement, he claimed he “couldn’t recall” multiple key conversations — a response that only raised eyebrows among committee members. Testimonies from SDTC’s CEO and other witnesses indicated Bains contacted Verschuren several times, yet his failure to acknowledge this directly cast doubt on his narrative of impartial oversight.

Opposition MPs argued that Bains’ procedural evasions were thinly veiled attempts to cover for what looks like a Liberal patronage pipeline. His refusal to answer clearly and his dependence on “I don’t recall” responses drew sharp criticism, with opposition leaders labeling it as a standard Liberal tactic to avoid admitting responsibility. The result? A testimony that shed little light on how SDTC was run but spoke volumes about the government’s willingness to dodge accountability whenever insiders are involved.

Inclusion and “Transparency” Won’t Save Liberals from Accountability

Throughout the Public Accounts Committee hearing, Liberal MPs Jean Yip and Francis Drouin took on a clear mission: protect Navdeep Bains at all costs. Instead of addressing the mountain of allegations around SDTC’s blatant cronyism and taxpayer waste, Yip and Drouin turned the hearing into a platform for Liberal talking points, spinning tales of “transparency” and “diversity” that conveniently dodged the actual corruption in front of them. Let’s be clear: hiding behind “inclusivity” doesn’t make the Liberals less corrupt, nor does it absolve them of responsibility when taxpayer money is at stake.

Jean Yip’s questioning gave Bains endless opportunities to recite the “open and competitive” process that supposedly led to Annette Verschuren’s appointment as SDTC board chair. Yet she never asked about Verschuren’s Liberal ties, or why so many millions were awarded to companies connected to SDTC board members. Yip’s focus on “inclusion” and “diverse voices” on the board was a distraction — a slick attempt to shift attention away from the Auditor General’s findings and avoid the reality that those “diverse voices” are well-connected Liberal insiders benefiting from your money.

Francis Drouin was right there to keep the narrative going, pivoting to SDTC’s supposed “green mandate” and giving Bains a platform to tout his government’s commitment to sustainability. But let’s call it what it is: a cover. By talking up sustainability and diversity, Drouin helped Bains avoid explaining why SDTC mismanaged $330 million on projects tied to its own board members, and why an additional $59 million went to ineligible initiatives. This wasn’t accountability — it was damage control, plain and simple.

Yip and Drouin’s interventions were textbook Liberal tactics: deflect, divert, and dilute the discussion. They may have repeated “transparency” and “inclusivity” all they wanted, but these buzzwords are nothing more than a smokescreen for taxpayer-funded favoritism. For Canadians watching, it was an unmistakable display of damage control — the Liberals doing everything they can to dodge real accountability while your tax dollars keep flowing to their inner circle.

Broader Implications: A Systemic Liberal Culture of Avoiding Accountability

The revelations from this Public Accounts Committee meeting show us something far darker than the mismanagement of a single agency. They expose a deeply entrenched system where Trudeau’s Liberal government doesn’t just waste taxpayer money — they use it to reward political cronies and shield insiders from accountability. This isn’t just negligence; it’s the Trudeau Swamp in action, a well-oiled machine funneling your money to friends and allies under the thin cover of bureaucratic “process.”

At the center of this scandal is a strategy the Liberals have perfected: hide behind procedural jargon and “arm’s-length” defenses to dodge any responsibility. The moment former Minister Navdeep Bains took the stand, you could see the tactics at work. Facing questions on how Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) turned into a cash cow for Liberal insiders, Bains and his fellow Liberal MPs defaulted to the same tired script — insisting every questionable allocation, every insider appointment, was just “routine process.” They claim “independence,” they claim “transparency,” but the evidence paints a different picture: Liberal insiders filling key roles and pulling the strings to channel your money into their pockets.

This scandal isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a glimpse into a troubling pattern, where taxpayer funds — meant for genuine public service — have become Trudeau’s political currency, up for grabs to those with the right connections. And make no mistake: Navdeep Bains’ refusal to answer real questions isn’t just about protecting himself. It’s about preserving a whole Liberal network that thrives on government patronage, hidden behind bureaucratic red tape. The Liberals have turned “process” into a shield, protecting ministers from facing the consequences of their actions.

The stakes couldn’t be higher for Canadians. This isn’t just about misusing a few dollars — it’s about a government prioritizing loyalty over public good, rewarding insiders while millions of Canadians wonder where their taxes are actually going. Under Trudeau’s watch, the promise of accountability has become a punchline, replaced with cronyism and evasion. So here’s the real question: Is Canada governed for its citizens, or for an elite network of well-connected Liberal insiders? Because after this committee meeting, the answer seems painfully clear.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

 

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

Carbon Tax

Canada’s Carbon Tax Is A Disaster For Our Economy And Oil Industry

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Lee Harding exposes the truth behind Canada’s sky-high carbon tax—one that’s hurting our oil industry and driving businesses away. With foreign oil paying next to nothing, Harding argues this policy is putting Canada at a major economic disadvantage. It’s time to rethink this costly approach.

Our sky-high carbon tax places Canadian businesses at a huge disadvantage and is pushing investment overseas

No carbon tax will ever satisfy global-warming advocates, but by most measures, Canada’s carbon tax is already too high.

This unfortunate reality was brought to light by Resource Works, a B.C.-based non-profit research and advocacy organization. In March, one of their papers outlined the disproportionate and damaging effects of Canada’s carbon taxes.

The study found that the average carbon tax among the top 20 oil-exporting nations, excluding Canada, was $0.70 per tonne of carbon emissions in fiscal 2023. With Canada included, that average jumps to $6.77 per tonne.

At least Canada demands the same standards for foreign producers as it does for domestic ones, right? Wrong.

Most of Canada’s oil imports come from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, none of which impose a carbon tax. Only 2.8 per cent of Canada’s oil imports come from the modestly carbon-taxing countries of the U.K. and Colombia.

Canada’s federal consumer carbon tax was $80 per tonne, set to reach $170 by 2030, until Prime Minister Mark Carney reduced it to zero on March 14. However, parallel carbon taxes on industry remain in place and continue to rise.

Resource Works estimates Canada’s effective carbon tax at $58.94 per tonne for fiscal 2023, while foreign oil entering Canada had an effective tax of just $0.30 per tonne.

“This results in a 196-fold disparity, effectively functioning as a domestic tariff against Canadian oil production,” the research memo notes. Forget Donald Trump—Ottawa undermines our country more effectively than anyone else.

Canada is responsible for 1.5 per cent of global CO2 emissions, but the study estimates that Canada paid one-third of all carbon taxes in 2023. Mexico, with nearly the same emissions, paid just $3 billion in carbon taxes for 2023-24, far less than Canada’s $44 billion.

Resource Works also calculated that Canada alone raised the global per-tonne carbon tax average from $1.63 to $2.44. To be Canadian is to be heavily taxed.

Historically, the Canadian dollar and oil and gas investment in Canada tracked the global price of oil, but not anymore. A disconnect began in 2016 when the Trudeau government cancelled the Northern Gateway pipeline and banned tanker traffic on B.C.’s north coast.

The carbon tax was introduced in 2019 at $15 per tonne, a rate that increased annually until this year. The study argues this “economic burden,” not shared by the rest of the world, has placed Canada at “a competitive disadvantage by accelerating capital flight and reinforcing economic headwinds.”

This “erosion of energy-sector investment” has broader economic consequences, including trade balance pressures and increased exchange rate volatility.

According to NASA, Canadian forest fires released 640 million metric tonnes of carbon in 2023, four times the amount from fossil fuel emissions. We should focus on fighting fires, not penalizing our fossil fuel industry.

Carney praised Canada’s carbon tax approach in his 2021 book Value(s), raising questions about how long his reprieve will last. He has suggested raising carbon taxes on industry, which would worsen Canada’s competitive disadvantage.

In contrast, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre argued that extracting and exporting Canadian oil and gas could displace higher-carbon-emitting energy sources elsewhere, helping to reduce global emissions.

This approach makes more sense than imposing disproportionately high tax burdens on Canadians. Taxes won’t save the world.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X