Business
Mark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog
After scathing warnings from interim budget officer Jason Jacques, Liberals move to silence dissent and install a compliant insider with “tact and discretion.”
It’s remarkable, isn’t it? After a decade of gaslighting Canadians about their so-called “fiscally responsible” governance, the Liberal Party, now under the direction of Mark Carney, finally runs into a problem they can’t spin: someone told the truth. Jason Jacques, the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, was appointed for six months, six months. And within weeks, he did something this government considers a fireable offense: he read the books, looked at the numbers, and spoke plainly. That’s it. His crime? Honesty.
Here’s what he found. First, the deficit. Remember when Trudeau said “the budget will balance itself”? That myth has now mutated into a projected $68.5 billion deficit for 2025–26, up from $51.7 billion the year before. Jacques didn’t just disagree with it. He called it “stupefying,” “shocking,” and, this is the one they hate the most, “unsustainable.” Because if there’s one thing Ottawa elites can’t handle, it’s accountability from someone who doesn’t need a job after this.
But Jacques didn’t stop there. He pointed out that this government has no fiscal anchor. None. Not even a fake one. A fiscal anchor is a target, like a deficit limit or a falling debt-to-GDP ratio—basic stuff for any country pretending to manage its money. Jacques said the Liberals have abandoned even that pretense. In his words, there’s no clear framework. Just blind spending. No roadmap. No compass. No brakes.
And speaking of GDP, here’s the kicker: the debt-to-GDP ratio, which Trudeau once swore would always go down, is now heading up. Jacques projects it rising from 41.7% in 2024–25 to over 43% by 2030–31. And what happens when debt rises and growth slows? You pay more just to service the interest. That’s exactly what Jacques warned. He said the cost of carrying the debt is eating into core government operations. That means fewer services. Higher taxes. Slower growth. The burden gets passed to your children while Mark Carney gives another speech in Zurich about “inclusive capitalism.”
And let’s talk about definitions. Jacques flagged that the Liberals are now muddying the waters on what counts as operating spending versus capital spending. Why does that matter? Because if you redefine the terms, you can claim to be balancing the “operating budget” while secretly racking up long-term debt. It’s accounting gimmickry, a shell game with your tax dollars.
He also pointed to unaccounted spending, about $20 billion a year in campaign promises that haven’t even been formally costed yet. Add that to their multi-decade defense commitments, green subsidies, and inflated federal payroll, and you’re looking at an avalanche of unmodeled liabilities.
And just to make this circus complete, Jacques even criticized the way his own office was filled. The Prime Minister can handpick an interim PBO with zero parliamentary input. No transparency. No debate. Just a quiet appointment, until the appointee grows a spine and tells the public what’s really going on.
Now the Liberals are racing to replace Jacques. Why? Because he said all of this publicly. Because he didn’t play ball. Because his office dared to function as it was intended: independently. They’re looking for someone with “tact and discretion.” That’s what the job listing says. Not independence. Not integrity. Tact. Discretion. In other words: someone who’ll sit down, shut up, and nod politely while Carney and Champagne burn through another $100 billion pretending it’s “investment.”
Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about replacing a bureaucrat. It’s about neutering the last shred of fiscal oversight left in Ottawa. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is supposed to be a firewall between reckless political ambition and your wallet. But in Carney’s Canada, independence is an inconvenience. So now, instead of extending Jacques’ term, something that would preserve continuity and show respect for accountability, the Liberals are shopping for a compliant technocrat. Someone who won’t call a $68.5 billion deficit “stupefying.” Someone who’ll massage the numbers just enough to keep the illusion intact.
They don’t want an economist. They want a courtier. Someone with just enough credentials to fake credibility, and just enough cowardice to keep their mouth shut when the spending blows past every so-called “anchor” they once pretended to respect. That’s the game. Keep the optics clean. Keep the watchdog muzzled. And keep Canadians in the dark while this government drives the country off a fiscal cliff.
But let me say it plainly, thank god someone in this country still believes in accountability. Thank God Jason Jacques stepped into that office and had the guts to tell the truth, not just to Parliament, but to the Canadian people. And thank God Pierre Poilievre has the common sense, the spine, and the clarity to back him. While Mark Carney and his Laurentian elite pals are busy gutting oversight, rewriting the rules, and flooding the economy with borrowed billions, it’s men like Jacques who refuse to play along. He looked at the books and didn’t see “investment”—he saw a ticking fiscal time bomb. And instead of ducking, he sounded the alarm.
Poilievre, to his credit, is standing firmly behind the man. He understands that without a real watchdog, Parliament becomes a stage play, just actors and scripts, no substance. Backing Jacques isn’t just good politics. It’s basic sanity. It’s the minimum standard for anyone who still thinks this country should live within its means, tell the truth about its finances, and respect the people footing the bill.
So while the Liberals scramble to muzzle dissent and hire another smiling yes-man with a resume full of buzzwords and a Rolodex full of Davos invites, at least one opposition leader is saying: No. We need a watchdog, not a lapdog. And in a city full of spineless bureaucrats, that’s not just refreshing—it’s absolutely essential.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
At what point does Ottawa admit its EV plan isn’t working?
Electric vehicles produce more pollution than the gas-powered cars they’re replacing.
This revelation, emerging from life-cycle and supply chain audits, exposes the false claim behind Ottawa’s more than $50 billion experiment. A Volvo study found that manufacturing an EV generates 70 per cent more emissions than building a comparable conventional vehicle because battery production is energy-intensive and often powered by coal in countries such as China. Depending on the electricity grid, it can take years or never for an EV to offset that initial carbon debt.
Prime Minister Mark Carney paused the federal electric vehicle (EV) mandate for 2026 due to public pressure and corporate failures while keeping the 2030 and 2035 targets. The mandate requires 20 per cent of new vehicles sold in 2026 to be zero-emission, rising to 60 per cent in 2030 and 100 per cent in 2035. Carney inherited this policy crisis but is reluctant to abandon it.
Industry failures and Trump tariffs forced Ottawa’s hand. Northvolt received $240 million in federal subsidies for a Quebec battery plant before filing for bankruptcy. Lion Electric burned through $100 million before announcing layoffs. Arrival, a U.K.-based electric van and bus manufacturer, collapsed entirely. Stellantis and LG Energy Solution extracted $15 billion for Windsor. Volkswagen secured $13 billion for St. Thomas.
The federal government committed more than $50 billion in subsidies and tax credits to prop up Canada’s EV industry. Ottawa defended these payouts as necessary to match the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which offers major incentives for EV and battery manufacturing. That is twice Manitoba’s annual operating budget. Every Manitoban could have had a two-year tax holiday with the public money Ottawa wasted on EVs.
Even with incentives, EVs reached only 15 per cent of new vehicle sales in 2024, far short of the mandated levels for 2026 and 2030. When federal subsidies ended in January 2025, sales collapsed to nine per cent, revealing the true level of consumer demand. Dealer lots overflowed with unsold inventory. EV sales also slowed in the U.S. and Europe in 2024, showing that cooling demand is a broader trend.
As economist Friedrich Hayek observed, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Politicians and bureaucrats cannot know what millions of Canadians know about their own needs. When federal ministers mandate which vehicles Canadians must buy and which companies deserve billions, they substitute the judgment of a few hundred officials for the collective wisdom of an entire market.
Bureaucrats draft regulations that determine the vehicles Canadians must purchase years from now, as if they can predict technology and consumer preferences better than markets.
Green ideology provided perfect cover. Invoke a climate emergency and fiscal responsibility vanishes. Question more than $50 billion in subsidies and you are labelled a climate denier. Point out the environmental costs of battery production, and you are accused of spreading misinformation.
History repeatedly teaches that central planning always fails. Soviet five-year plans, Venezuela’s resource nationalization and Britain’s industrial policy failures all show the same pattern. Every attempt to run economies from political offices ends in misallocation, waste and outcomes opposite to those promised. Concentrated political power cannot ever match the intelligence of free markets responding to real prices and constraints.
Markets collect information that no central planner can access. Prices signal scarcity and value. Profits and losses reward accuracy and punish error. When governments override these mechanisms with mandates and subsidies, they impair the information system that enables rational economic decisions.
The EV mandate forced a technological shift and failed. Billions in subsidies went to failing companies. Taxpayers absorbed losses while corporations walked away. Workers lost their jobs.
Canada needs a full repeal of the EV mandate and a retreat from PMO planners directing market decisions. The law must be struck, not paused. The contrived 2030 and 2035 targets must be abandoned.
Markets, not cabinet ministers, must determine what technologies Canadians choose.
Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
President Donald Trump dealt the dreams of former President Joe Biden for an all-electric fleet of American cars a fatal blow on Thursday by terminating the onerous Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards Biden invoked in 2022 and further tightened in 2024.
“We’re officially terminating Joe Biden’s ridiculously burdensome, horrible actually, CAFE standards, that imposed expensive restrictions… It puts tremendous pressure on upward car prices,” Trump said during a press conference held in the Oval Office Thursday afternoon.
The Biden standards, which cranked down on allowable tailpipe emissions and raised industry-wide average car mileage to a stratospheric 50.4 miles per gallon requirement by 2030, were the centerpiece of his strategy to force American consumers to buy electric vehicles by intentionally forcing up prices for traditional internal combustion models.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
That’s right, America: Your government, led by Joe Biden’s autopen and the woke staffers who wielded it, intentionally and with malice aforethought drove up the prices of the gas powered cars you actually want to buy to try to force you to purchase electric models that poll after poll proves most of you don’t want. They did this all in the name of the global climate alarm religion, which far too many U.S. politicians use to justify a vast array of authoritarian actions.
The unbridled hubris involved in even entertaining this concept would have in the past been considered scandalous. Yet, today, it is completely in keeping with one of the central goals of the energy transition movement to drive up the costs of all traditional forms of energy to try to make the subsidized alternatives favored by the Democratic Party – wind, solar, and electric vehicles – competitive in the market. Activists in the climate alarm movement no longer even try to deny this goal – they proudly boast about it.
This was the real enterprise behind Biden’s ridiculous CAFE standards, and it is what President Trump interrupted on Thursday. It was just the latest in a series of body blows Trump and his officials have dealt the U.S. EV industry, one that could well prove fatal to many pure-play electric car companies and force major reallocations of capital budgets inside integrated automakers like Ford, GM, and Stellantis.
Naturally, the climate alarm activist community was outraged. “Trump’s action will feed America’s destructive use of oil, while hamstringing us in the green tech race against … foreign carmakers,” said Dan Becker, Director of the notorious far-left conflict group, the Center for Biological Diversity, according to the Guardian.
But here’s the thing: U.S. consumers don’t want to buy the alternative the climate alarm community and Biden administration were trying to force. Even with the attraction of Biden’s economically ruinous $7,500 per unit IRA subsidies, U.S. car buyers made clear their strong preference for big, full-size, gas-or-diesel-powered pickups and SUVs.
This reality is why Stellantis announced in September it was abandoning plans to introduce a full-size electric pickup to compete with Ford’s F-150 Lightning. Even worse for EV boosters, Ford has already cut back on production of the Lightning model, and is planning to eliminate it entirely soon, according to the Wall Street Journal. These decisions and plans were already underway long before Trump’s decision to rescind the CAFE standards, based on simple consumer demand.
Interestingly, many consumers believe Trump didn’t go far enough on Thursday, and that he should simply eliminate mileage requirements altogether. One commenter to my Substack newsletter writes, “why didn’t they just kill CAFE standards once and for all? From what clause in the Constitution does the federal government have the right to limit what type of car I can buy?…They should have just killed it outright.”
It’s a legitimate question: Why do federal regulators believe they have the right to control consumer behavior in the name of climate alarmism? In light of last year’s decision by the Supreme Court to rescind the Chevron deference – which helped facilitate the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy for 40 long years – it’s a question that could be litigated in the months and years to come.
Joe Biden’s EV dreams are dead now, but that doesn’t mean the situation can’t possibly get even worse for the EV industry in America. Stay tuned.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Net Zero goal is a fundamental flaw in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU
Tech Mogul Gives $6 Billion To 25 Million Kids To Boost Trump Investment Accounts
Learning the Truth about “Children’s Graves” and Residential Schools is More Important than Ever
Manitoba Is Doubling Down On A Failed Drug Policy
Canada Still Serves Up Food Dyes The FDA Has Banned
The dangers of mRNA vaccines explained by Dr. John Campbell
Canadians will soon be versed in massive West Coast LPG mega-project
-
Economy2 days agoWhat the Data Shows About the New Canada-Alberta Pipeline Opportunity
-
Energy2 days agoThe Trickster Politics of the Tanker Ban are Hiding a Much Bigger Reckoning for B.C.
-
illegal immigration2 days agoWhile Trump has southern border secure, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants still flooding in from Canada
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoCanadian bishops condemn Liberal ‘hate speech’ proposal that could criminalize quoting Scripture
-
Energy1 day agoSenate votes to reopen Alaska Coastal Plain to energy leasing
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTrump Orders Review Of Why U.S. Childhood Vaccination Schedule Has More Shots Than Peer Countries
-
Alberta20 hours agoA Memorandum of Understanding that no Canadian can understand
-
Aristotle Foundation20 hours agoThe extreme ideology behind B.C.’s radical reconciliation agenda