Why Carney’s WEF Ties, Carbon Taxes, and Reckless Economic Policies Spell More of the Same for Canadians Under the Liberal Leadership
Let’s break it down, folks. Mark Carney, the supposed “economic savior” for the Liberal Party, was just announced as an advisor to Trudeau’s sinking ship. We’re told he’s here to focus on “economic growth” and help the middle class. Really? Does anyone actually believe that? This guy is the definition of globalist, woke, elite policy, and the idea that he’s going to be the one to turn things around is a joke.
Whether Mark Carney can salvage the sinking Liberal brand is questionable at best, but what’s undeniable is that the party is in free fall, and people are jumping ship. Just last week, the Liberal campaign director Jeremy Broadhurst who was a significant member of the liberal party called it quits, signaling deeper chaos within the ranks. And this all leads back to Carney. I’ve thought this through since last year: nobody within the current Liberal party can lead. It’s detestable, riddled with failure, and there’s zero charisma left in that sinking ship.
If you take a look at Mélanie Joly, she’s been an utter disaster with foreign policy—just look at the Israel debacle, where her inconsistent stances have hurt Canada’s credibility. Then there’s Anita Anand, who promised big savings for Canadians in her role at the Treasury, but where are the results? Nowhere to be seen. Canadians are still waiting for those elusive “big cuts.”
And finally, Chrystia Freeland—she’s presided over one of the worst economic periods in recent history, with soaring debt, inflation, and out-of-touch policies like bragging about biking to work while ordinary Canadians are struggling to pay for gas and groceries. It’s failures all around, and voters see right through it.
Justin Trudeau is headed for a Titanic-like disaster in the next election. As 338Canada’s polling numbers make clear, Trudeau’s ship is going down. And when it does, Mark Carney will be waiting in the wings to take over. The Liberal deep state is banking on Carney being their fiscal savior, hoping he can stand as a counter to the fiscally responsible Pierre Poilievre. But let’s be real: Mark Carney is just Justin Trudeau 2.0. Whether he can succeed or not is anyone’s guess, but it’s clear the Liberals are doubling down on the same disastrous ideology that got them here in the first place.
And believe me Mark Carney isn’t some independent economic genius who’s going to swoop in and save the Liberal Party. No, he’s the ultimate globalist insider, with deep ties to the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the same out-of-touch elites who have been shaping Trudeau’s disastrous policies from day one. The WEF is all about a top-down, centralized control of the economy, and Carney’s their man in Canada. He’s been a leading voice in pushing for the Great Reset—you know, the one where “you’ll own nothing and be happy”—a world where personal freedom and national sovereignty take a backseat to global control.
Carney’s been in bed with the WEF for years, rubbing shoulders with Klaus Schwab and the rest of the Davos crowd who think they know better than regular Canadians. They’re obsessed with their climate agenda, which sounds great on paper until you realize it’s nothing more than an excuse to impose carbon taxes and regulations that cripple businesses and raise the cost of living for everyone except the rich. Carney was one of the loudest voices behind the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) movement, which forces corporations to prioritize social justice and climate goals over profitability and jobs. And who suffers? Middle-class Canadians who just want to put food on the table and keep the lights on.
Look, this isn’t speculation. Carney’s record speaks for itself. As Governor of the Bank of England, he was the architect of quantitative easing, which means printing more money out of thin air. The result? Inflation skyrocketed, and who got hurt? Not the global elites, not the bankers, but the regular folks whose savings became worthless and whose cost of living exploded. This is exactly what we’ve been seeing under Trudeau’s watch, and Carney is here to push more of the same failed policies.
And let’s get something straight: Mark Carney isn’t just indifferent to tax cuts—he actively opposes them. During his time at the Bank of England, Carney consistently pushed back on fiscal conservatism, instead advocating for higher taxes to fund massive government programs, particularly around climate initiatives. His World Economic Forum (WEF) ties reinforce this mindset. The WEF’s agenda is all about redistribution under the guise of climate action and “equity,” and Carney is right at the forefront. He promotes policies that prioritize environmental and social goals over economic freedom, and tax cuts simply don’t fit into that agenda.
Carney’s support for carbon taxes is one of the clearest examples. He’s been a vocal supporter of these taxes, which disproportionately hurt middle- and lower-income families while doing next to nothing to meaningfully reduce emissions. But here’s why Carney doesn’t care about tax cuts: they don’t fit his globalist vision of top-down control. Instead of allowing Canadians to keep more of their money and spur private sector growth, he’s all in on higher taxes and more government intervention to meet global targets that come straight from the WEF playbook.
And let’s be crystal clear here: these carbon taxes that Trudeau and Carney love so much haven’t stopped a single wildfire, tornado, or hurricane. All they’ve done is drive jobs and manufacturing out of Canada and into countries like China and India, where carbon emissions and pollution are an afterthought. It’s virtue-signaling at its finest.
If you don’t believe me, go to any store in Canada—go to Canadian Tire, check out where that toaster is made. China. Your Dyson vacuum? China. Head over to Mark’s Work Wearhouse, try finding a single sock not made in China. Good luck. You won’t find it. Because what the Trudeau government and Mark Carney’s woke climate agenda have done is force our industries to offshore to places where environmental regulations don’t exist. We’ve exported our emissions, our jobs, and our economic power to countries that don’t give a damn about carbon or pollution.
Meanwhile, here in Canada, we’re being told that we have to pay more for gas and groceries because we need to do our part for the environment. All while Trudeau flies to Davos in his private jet to rub elbows with the global elite, pretending he’s saving the planet on the tax payers dime. It’s a complete farce. The carbon tax isn’t saving the environment; it’s driving up the cost of living and destroying Canadian manufacturing. It’s a scam designed to make elites like Carney and Trudeau look virtuous while the rest of us pay the price.
So, let’s end with this: Canadians, it’s time for real change. This government has failed every generation, from students struggling to find jobs and buy homes, to retirees facing new capital gains taxes. The Liberals have been a disaster for everyone. They’ve crushed opportunities for young people and are now squeezing older generations with their reckless economic policies.
If you think Mark Carney is going to offer something different from Justin Trudeau, think again. He’s just an older, more polished version of Trudeau, with the same World Economic Forum (WEF) ties, the same reckless “spend, spend, spend” approach through quantitative easing (QE), and the same disdain for lowering taxes. Carney isn’t the change we need—he’s more of the same, doubling down on failed globalist policies that harm everyday Canadians.
And oh, by the way—don’t let Chrystia Freeland in on the secret that Mark Carney’s circling her job. She’ll have to bike herself right on out of Parliament! Maybe she can find a new gig lecturing us about climate change from her taxpayer-funded chauffeur. But seriously, folks, Canada deserves better than this circus of failed leadership.
It’s time we broke free from this disastrous, virtue-signaling government and got back to basics—hard work, opportunity, and good old-fashioned freedom. Let’s reclaim our country, rebuild an economy where every generation can actually thrive, and put Canadians first again. Enough of the elite lectures from the likes of Trudeau, Carney, and Freeland. Time to chart a new course!
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.
It’s now more than four years since the federal Liberal government pledged $30 billion in spending over five years for $10-per-day national child care, and more than three years since Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government signed a $13.2 billion deal with the federal government to deliver this child-care plan.
Not surprisingly, with massive government funding came massive government control. While demand for child care has increased due to the government subsidies and lower out-of-pocket costs for parents, the plan significantly restricts how child-care centres operate (including what items participating centres may purchase), and crucially, caps the proportion of government funds available to private for-profit providers.
What have families and taxpayers got for this enormous government effort? Widespread child-care shortages across Ontario.
For example, according to the City of Ottawa, the number of children (aged 0 to 5 years) on child-care waitlists has ballooned by more than 300 per cent since 2019, there are significant disparities in affordable child-care access “with nearly half of neighbourhoods underserved, and limited access in suburban and rural areas,” and families face “significantly higher” costs for before-and-after-school care for school-age children.
In addition, Ottawa families find the system “complex and difficult to navigate” and “fewer child care options exist for children with special needs.” And while 42 per cent of surveyed parents need flexible child care (weekends, evenings, part-time care), only one per cent of child-care centres offer these flexible options. These are clearly not encouraging statistics, and show that a government-knows-best approach does not properly anticipate the diverse needs of diverse families.
Moreover, according to the Peel Region’s 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government (essentially, a list of asks and recommendations), it “has maximized its for-profit allocation, leaving 1,460 for-profit spaces on a waitlist.” In other words, families can’t access $10-per-day child care—the central promise of the plan—because the government has capped the number of for-profit centres.
Similarly, according to Halton Region’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government, “no additional families can be supported with affordable child care” because, under current provincial rules, government funding can only be used to reduce child-care fees for families already in the program.
And according to a March 2025 Oxford County report, the municipality is experiencing a shortage of child-care staff and access challenges for low-income families and children with special needs. The report includes a grim bureaucratic predication that “provincial expansion targets do not reflect anticipated child care demand.”
Child-care access is also a problem provincewide. In Stratford, which has a population of roughly 33,000, the municipal government reports that more than 1,000 children are on a child-care waitlist. Similarly in Port Colborne (population 20,000), the city’s chief administrative officer told city council in April 2025 there were almost 500 children on daycare waitlists at the beginning of the school term. As of the end of last year, Guelph and Wellington County reportedly had a total of 2,569 full-day child-care spaces for children up to age four, versus a waitlist of 4,559 children—in other words, nearly two times as many children on a waitlist compared to the number of child-care spaces.
More examples. In Prince Edward County, population around 26,000, there are more than 400 children waitlisted for licensed daycare. In Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton County, the child-care waitlist is about 1,500 children long and the average wait time is four years. And in St. Mary’s, there are more than 600 children waitlisted for child care, but in recent years town staff have only been able to move 25 to 30 children off the wait list annually.
The numbers speak for themselves. Massive government spending and control over child care has created havoc for Ontario families and made child-care access worse. This cannot be a surprise. Quebec’s child-care system has been largely government controlled for decades, with poor results. Why would Ontario be any different? And how long will Premier Ford allow this debacle to continue before he asks the new prime minister to rethink the child-care policy of his predecessor?
Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.
Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.
“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”
By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.
“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.
Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.
“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.
Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.
Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.
Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.
“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”
Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.
Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.
Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.
A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.
Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.
