Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

PBO Report Reveals Trudeau’s Carbon Tax Crushes Middle-Class Canadians

Published

7 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

PBO Report Exposes Trudeau’s Carbon Tax as a Middle-Class Burden, With Net Economic Losses, Crushed Job Prospects, and Hollow Rebates

In a bombshell report dated October 10, 2024, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) exposes the cold reality of Trudeau’s carbon tax policy: it’s making life harder for middle-class Canadians. While the Prime Minister continues to tout the virtues of his climate plan, the PBO’s findings show that far from protecting the environment, the federal fuel charge is crippling Canadian families—especially those in the middle income brackets.

Let’s be clear: Trudeau’s carbon tax isn’t just a simple “polluter pays” system. According to the PBO’s distributional analysis of the federal fuel charge, average Canadian households will face substantial net economic costs by 2030, despite government-issued rebates. Trudeau loves to parade the fact that Canadians get rebates through the Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR), but the numbers tell a different story when you dig into the real economic impact.

The Middle-Class Burden

For middle-class Canadians, the so-called “climate action” of the Trudeau government comes with serious consequences. By 2030-31, the carbon price will hit $170 per tonne, with devastating effects on household incomes. Even though rebates are supposed to offset the pain, the PBO’s analysis shows that once you factor in the economic fallout—job losses, reduced wages, and weaker investments—middle-class families end up worse off.

For example, in Ontario, a province Trudeau regularly visits to promote his policies, middle-income households will face steep costs. According to the PBO, households in the third quintile (middle income) will see $588 in net costs—and that’s just after factoring in rebates. When you look at the combined hit from job losses and reduced income, the overall financial burden for middle-class families grows even larger​.

In Saskatchewan, things are even more dire. The average household in the third income quintile will suffer from a $1,205 net loss by 2030-31. For working families who depend on stable employment in energy, agriculture, and manufacturing, this tax punishes them more than it rewards them​.

Trudeau’s Rebate Shell Game

Trudeau’s government spins the carbon rebate as some kind of economic miracle, suggesting families get back more than they pay. But as the PBO’s report shows, this claim is little more than political smoke and mirrors. The rebates might look good on paper for the lowest-income Canadians, but for everyone else—especially middle-income earners—it’s a losing game.

Even with rebates factored in, the economic damage of Trudeau’s carbon tax results in net losses for most families. By 2030, the federal fuel charge will contribute to an overall reduction of 0.6% in real GDP across the backstop provinces, which excludes Quebec and British Columbia. Middle-class families are stuck dealing with reduced employment opportunities, lower investment incomes, and weaker wage growth—all while Trudeau’s elite friends and the liberal establishment pat themselves on the back for “going green”​​.

Crushing Investments and Jobs

What Trudeau doesn’t want you to know is that this tax doesn’t just hurt family finances. It’s killing jobs. The PBO report shows that by 2030, the carbon tax will reduce capital income—that’s the money people earn from investments—by as much as 2.4% in provinces like Alberta. Worse, it will slash labor income—the wages people depend on—by over 1.4% in places like Saskatchewan. That’s devastating for middle-income earners whose livelihoods depend on industries targeted by the Liberals’ climate agenda​.

While low-income Canadians might see minimal gains from Trudeau’s rebates, middle-class families face the harsh reality of stagnant wages, diminished savings, and a lack of economic opportunity. Trudeau’s tax isn’t just a burden on polluters, it’s a punishment for working Canadians trying to get by.

A Failed Experiment – Just Look at British Columbia

If you want to see where Trudeau’s carbon tax will lead, just look at British Columbia. They’ve had a carbon tax since 2008, and it hasn’t stopped a single wildfire, flood, or heat dome. Did that carbon tax prevent the devastating atmospheric river? Not a chance. This so-called climate solution has done nothing to shield British Columbians from environmental disasters.

Even worse, while the federal government has been collecting billions in carbon tax revenue, they’ve neglected to address the fuel buildup in forests around places like Jasper. For years, experts have warned about the dangers, and yet not a dime of that tax money was spent on controlled burns or preventive measures. The result? Our beautiful Jasper National Park was left to burn. Trudeau and his government couldn’t save our park, they couldn’t save our forests, and they certainly couldn’t save Jasper​.

A Sacrifice for Nothing

My fellow Canadians, governments have been trying to control the weather since the dawn of time. Ancient civilizations sacrificed animals to the gods, hoping for good weather. Today, the sacrifice is your money. Yesterday, it was a goat to Zeus; today, it’s a carbon tax to Trudeau. In the end, it’s just another way for the government to take from you, promising it will fix things it simply cannot control.

But here’s the truth: this tax won’t change the climate, won’t stop the floods, and certainly won’t bring back our forests. The only thing it’s doing is draining your household to feed a bloated government. The PBO report is clear: Trudeau’s carbon tax is hurting middle-class families while delivering nothing in return.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Mental Health

Headline that reads ‘Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court’ a sign of the times in Canada

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Gender ideology so entrenched, surgical mutilation is no longer considered fringe

If you’d like a glimpse of what 10 years of progressive rule has done to Canada in a single sentence, I submit to you this April 24 headline: “Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court.”

Imagine reading a headline like that in, say, 2010. You’d wonder what country you were living in — that is, if you weren’t trying to figure out what you just read. But in Canada in 2025, this stuff isn’t fringe. It’s establishment.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, the province’s top court, issued a ruling this week stating that the province must pay for a “penile-sparing vaginoplasty” for a resident who identifies as transgender but does not identify “exclusively” as either male or female and thus would like to possess both a penis and a vagina.

According to the Post, “a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court’s ruling that the novel phallus-preserving surgery qualifies as an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.” In case you’re tempted to write this off as an aberration at the hands of a handful of activist judges, this ruling is the third unanimous decision in favor of the “patient,” identified in court records as “K.S.”

“K.S. is pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision, which is now the third unanimous ruling confirming that her gender affirming surgery is covered under Ontario’s Health Insurance Act and its regulation,” K.S.’s lawyer, John McIntyre, told the Post. K.S., as it turns out, identifies as neither male nor female … but uses female pronouns:

The legal battle between K.S., whose sex at birth was male, dates to 2022, when the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) refused her request to pay for the cost of surgery at a Texas clinic to construct a vagina while sparing the penis, a procedure this is not available in Ontario, or anywhere else in Canada. K.S. uses female pronouns but does not identify as either fully female or fully male.

Previously, saner generations would have no idea how to interpret the preceding paragraph, but gender ideology has made fools of us all. OHIP attempted to argue that “because the vaginoplasty would not be accompanied by a penectomy, the procedure isn’t one specifically listed in OHIP’s Schedule of Benefits and therefore shouldn’t be publicly funded” and also that the surgery is “experimental” in Ontario and thus can’t be covered.

But K.S., who has a male member but would also like a neo-vagina, appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which overturned OHIP’s decision. OHIP appealed to the Divisional Court but lost; the latest appeal, heard November 26, was also rejected because a “penectomy,” the removal of the penis, was “neither recommended by K.S.’s health professionals nor desired by K.S.,” according to the court’s decision.

I wonder if the judges thought that they’d be ruling on whether a man who identifies as neither a man or a woman was entitled to obtain a vagina while retaining his penis when they were going to law school.

The court stated that K.S., who is in his early 30s, “has experienced significant gender dysphoria since her teenage years, as well as physical, mental and economic hardships to transition her gender expression to align with her gender identity.” Of course, K.S. isn’t “transgender,” per se — because he doesn’t identify as the opposite sex, even though he uses the pronouns of the opposite sex. He wants to be … both, somehow. And he wants the taxpayer to pay for it.

K.S.’s doctor submitted a request to OHIP for prior funding approval for the surgical creation of a vaginal cavity and external vulva. The request made it clear that K.S. wasn’t seeking a penectomy. In a letter accompanying the request, her doctor said that because K.S. is “not completely on the ‘feminine’ end of the spectrum” it was important for her to have a vagina while maintaining her penis, adding that the Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin, Tx.,” has an excellent reputation” for gender-affirming surgery, “and especially with these more complicated procedures.”

The surgeries, depending on which are performed, range in cost “from US $10,000 to $70,000.” The court also ordered Ontario to pay K.S. $23,250 after dismissing OHIP’s appeal; the province has until June 23 to seek leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture WarSeeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of AbortionPatriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life MovementPrairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Preston Manning: Canada is in a unity crisis

Published on

Preston Manning's avatar Preston Manning

A Canada West Assembly would investigate why

The election of a minority Liberal government on Monday, and the strong showing of the Conservative party under Pierre Poilievre, cannot mask the fact that Canada remains seriously fractured on many fronts. Thus, one of the primary tasks of the Carney government will be to unite us for the sake of our own national well-being — not simply for the sake of presenting a strong front in future dealings with the United States.

But how is that to be done? When parliament meets as scheduled on May 26, will the government’s throne speech acknowledge the main sources of national disunity and propose the immediate adoption of remedial measures? Or will it ignore the problem entirely, which will serve to further alienate Quebec and the West from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, and weaken Canada’s bargaining position vis a vis the United States?

The principal tactic employed by the Liberal party to unite Canadians behind it in the recent election was to employ the politics of fear — fear of U.S. President Donald Trump trying to “break us so that America can own us,” as Liberal Leader Mark Carney has repeatedly said.

But if the only way to unite Canadians is through the promotion of anti-Americanism fostered by fear of some alleged American takeover — if reaction to the erratic musings of an American president is the only way to motivate more Canadians to vote in a federal election — then not only national unity, but Canadian democracy itself, is in critical condition.

We need to pinpoint what actually is fracturing the country, because if we can clearly define that, we can begin the process of removing those divisive elements to the largest extent possible. Carney and the Liberals will of course declare that it is separatist agitations in Quebec and now the West that is dividing us, but these are simply symptoms of the problem, not the cause.

Here, then, is a partial list of what underpins the division and disunity in this country and, more importantly, of some positive, achievable actions we can take to reduce or eliminate them.

First and foremost is the failure to recognize and accommodate the regional character of this country. Canada is the second-largest country by area on the planet and is characterized by huge geographic regions — the Atlantic, Central Canada, the Prairies, the Pacific Coast and the Northern territories.

Each of these regions — not just Quebec — has its own “distinctive” concerns and aspirations, which must be officially recognized and addressed by the federal government if the country is to be truly united. The previous Liberal government consistently failed to do this, particularly with respect to the Prairies, Pacific and Northern regions, which is the root of much of the alienation that even stimulates talk of western separation.

Second is Ottawa’s failure to recognize and treat the natural resources sector as a fundamental building block of our national economy — not as a relic from the past or an environmental liability, as it was regarded by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Will the throne speech announce another 180-degree turn for the Liberal government: the explicit recognition that the great engine of the Canadian economy and our economic recovery is not the federal government, as Carney has implied, but Canada’s agricultural, energy, mining, forestry and fishery sectors, with all the processing, servicing, manufacturing and knowledge sectors that are built upon them?

A third issue we’ve been plagued with is the division of Canadian society based on race, gender, sexual preferences and other identity traits, rather than focusing on the things that unite us as a nation, such as the equality of all under the law. Many private-sector entities are beginning to see the folly of pursuing identity initiatives such as diversity, equity and inclusion that divide rather than unite, but will the Liberal government follow suit and will that intention be made crystal clear in the upcoming throne speech?

A final issue is the federal government’s intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction — such as natural resources, health, municipal governance, along with property and civil rights — which is the principal cause of tension and conflict between the federal and provincial governments.

The solution is to pass a federal “act respecting provincial jurisdiction” to repeal or amend the statutes that authorize federal intrusions, so as to eliminate, or at least reduce, their intrusiveness. Coincidentally, this would be a legislative measure that both the Conservatives and the Bloc could unite behind if such a statute were to be one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Carney government.

Polling is currently being done to ascertain whether the election of yet another Liberal government has increased the growing estrangement of western Canada from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, notwithstanding Carney’s assurances that his minority government will change its policies on climate change, pipelines, immigration, deficit spending and other distinguishing characteristics of the discredited Trudeau government.

The first test of the truthfulness of those assurances will come via the speech from the throne and the follow-up actions of the federal government.

Meanwhile, consultations are being held on the merits and means of organizing a “Canada West Assembly” to provide a democratic forum for the presentation, analysis and debate of the options facing western Canada (not just Alberta) — from acceptance of a fairer and stronger position within the federation based on guarantees from the federal government, to various independence-oriented proposals, with votes to be taken on the various options and recommendations to be made to the affected provincial governments.

Only time will tell whether the newly elected Carney government chooses to address the root causes of national disunity. But whether it does so or not will influence the direction in which the western provinces and the proposed Canada West Assembly will point.

Preston’s Substack is free today.

But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Preston’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.

Pledge your support

Continue Reading

Trending

X