Business
Why should Liberal MPs defend the carbon tax now?
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax should be tucked under his arm while he doesn’t let the door hit them on the way out.
And Liberal caucus members need to make sure that happens.
Those in doubt need to ask themselves two questions.
Practically, why should Canadians keep paying the carbon tax for another few months before the next election?
Politically, why should government MPs keep paying a price with voters because of the carbon tax?
The carbon tax can be slayed on Wednesday during the Liberal party’s emergency caucus meeting.
Caucus finally rose up and finally forced the prime minister to face the reality that he can’t get re-elected.
But that’s only half of the job.
The problem isn’t just one person. It’s the policies. And Trudeau’s trademark carbon tax is one of his biggest failures. Replacing the PM while keeping the carbon tax is like switching the blackjack dealer while still facing a stacked deck.
And the Liberal caucus knows this.
Those Liberal MPs have been yelled at by their constituents about the carbon tax for years.
Hardworking people have been telling these MPs they can’t afford the carbon tax and it’s unfair to be punished for driving to work, heating their homes and buying food.
Those MPs have seen their constituents’ heating bills, the costs of their commutes and the invoices for their businesses.
They know the carbon tax adds about $13 to the cost of filling a minivan and about $20 extra to fill a pickup. They know the carbon tax is costing long haul truckers about $2 billion this year and they know it will cost farmers $1 billion in the next five years.
They know Canada misses its emissions targets, even with the carbon tax.
And here’s the big one: these MPs know the carbon tax is getting hiked on April 1.
The timeline has to be terrifying for Liberals seeking re-election.
March 24, the House of Commons reconvenes.
The government presents its Throne speech and immediately starts facing confidence votes with all opposition parties promising to vote against the government.
Then, on April 1, the government raises the carbon tax again.
Imagine door knocking after losing a confidence vote and raising the carbon tax.
Imagine being an MP from southern Ontario and a greenhouse tomato grower walks into your office with a chart showing his carbon tax costs.
Imagine trying to tell that farmer that he “gets more back” than he pays in the carbon tax.
Picture being an MP from Halifax and telling your constituents they need to buy an electric heat pump as their sole source of winter warmth before the carbon tax slaps them again.
Nova Scotia has charming weather events such as ice fog which seeps into a house like a ghost from a Dickens novel. So, most Maritime folks still need a furnace and Trudeau’s carbon tax punishes them.
These MPs have all been hollered at by their constituents who have been wounded by the carbon tax.
No matter how much the MPs may have pleaded with Trudeau behind closed doors, he kept the carbon tax and forced his MPs to defend it.
Trudeau tied this millstone to the necks of his MPs and didn’t care how much it ground them down.
But he’s leaving now.
And these Liberal MPs have the opportunity to cut the rope and free themselves from Trudeau’s carbon tax.
The Liberal caucus is holding an emergency meeting on Parliament Hill on Wednesday, and those members of Parliament need to demand an end to carbon tax then and there.
Why should they force Canadians to keep muttering profanities when they fill up their cars or pay the carbon tax charges on their heating bills?
Why should Liberal MPs face day after day of berating phone calls from constituents who don’t buy PMO talking points about the carbon tax?
The least they can do is spare Canadians the cost of the carbon tax right now and try to do the right thing in the end.
On Wednesday, Liberal MPs have to demand an end to the carbon tax.
From the Fraser Institute
By Scott Lincicome
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of the global tariffs President Donald J. Trump has imposed under the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). A court decision invalidating the tariffs is widely expected—hovering around 75 per cent on various betting markets—and would be welcome news for American importers, the United States economy and the rule of law. Even without IEEPA, however, other U.S. laws all but ensure that much higher tariffs will remain the norm. Realizing that protection will just take a little longer and, perhaps, be a little more predictable.
As my Cato Institute colleague Clark Packard and I wrote last year, the Constitution grants Congress the power to impose tariffs, but the legislative branch during the 20th century delegated much of that authority to the president under the assumption that he would be the least likely to abuse it. Thus, U.S. trade law is today littered with provisions granting the president broad powers to impose tariffs for various reasons. No IEEPA needed.
This includes laws that Trump has already invoked. Today, for example, we have “Section 301” tariffs of up to 25 per cent on around half of all Chinese imports, due to alleged “unfair trade” practices by Beijing. We also have global “Section 232” tariffs of up to 50 per cent on imports of steel and aluminum, automotive goods, heavy-duty trucks, copper and wood products—each imposed on the grounds that these goods threaten U.S. national security. The Trump administration also has created a process whereby “derivative” products made from goods subject to Section 232 tariffs will be covered by those same tariffs. Several other Section 232 investigations—on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, commercial aircraft, and more—were also initiated earlier this year, setting the stage for more U.S. tariffs in the weeks ahead.
Trump administration officials admit that they’ve been studying these and other laws as fallback options if the Supreme Court invalidates the IEEPA tariffs. Their toolkit reportedly includes completing the actions above, initiating new investigations under Section 301 (targeting specific countries) and Section 232 (targeting certain products), and imposing tariffs under other laws that have not yet been invoked. Most notably, there’s strong administration interest in Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which empowers the president to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits via global tariffs of up to 15 per cent for no more than 150 days (after which Congress must act to continue the tariffs). The administration might also consider Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a short and ambiguous law that authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 per cent on imports from countries that have “discriminated” against U.S. commerce—but this is riskier because the law may have been superseded by Section 301.
We should expect the administration to move quickly to use these measures to reverse engineer Trump’s global tariff regime under IEEPA. The main difference would be in how he does so. IEEPA was essentially a tariff switch in the Oval Office that could be flipped on and off instantly, creating massive uncertainty for businesses, foreign governments and the U.S. economy. The alternative authorities, by contrast, all have substantive and procedural guardrails that limit their size and scope, or, at the very least, give American and foreign companies time to prepare for forthcoming tariffs (or lobby against them).
Section 301, for example, requires an investigation of a foreign country’s trade and economic policies—cases that typically take nine months and involve public hearings and formal findings. Section 232 requires an investigation into and a report on whether imports threaten national security—actions that also typically take months. Section 122 has fewer procedures, but its limited duration and 15 per cent cap make it far less dangerous than IEEPA, under which Trump has repeatedly threatened tariffs of 100 per cent or more.
Of course, “procedural guardrails” is a relative term for an administration that has already stretched Section 232’s “national security” rationale to cover bathroom vanities. The courts also have largely rubber-stamped the administration’s previous moves under Section 232 and Section 301—a big reason why we should expect the Trump administration’s tariff “Plan B” to feature them.
Thus, a court ruling against the IEEPA tariffs would be an important victory for constitutional governance and would eliminate the most destabilizing element of Trump’s tariff regime. But until the U.S. Congress reclaims some of its constitutional authority over U.S. trade policy, high and costly tariffs will remain.
It finally happened. Canada received a federal budget earlier this month, after more than a year without one. It’s far from a budget that’s great. It’s far from what many expected and distant from what the country needs. But it still passed.
With the budget vote drama now behind us, there may be space for some general observations beyond the details of the concerning deficits and debt. What kind of budget did Canada get?
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Try it out.
For a government that built its political identity on social-program expansion and moralized spending, Budget 2025 arrives wearing borrowed clothing. It speaks in the language of productivity, infrastructure, and capital formation, the diction of grown-up economics, yet keeps the full spending reflex of the Trudeau era. The result feels like a cabinet trying to change its fiscal costume without changing the character inside it. Time will tell, to be fair, but it feels like more rhetoric, and we have seen this same rhetoric before lead to nothing. So, I remain skeptical of what they say and how they say it.
The government insists it has found a new path, one where public investment leads private growth. That sounds bold. However, it is more a rebranding than a reform. It is a shift in vocabulary, not in discipline.
A comparison with past eras makes this clear.
Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did not flirt with restraint; they executed it. Their budgets were cut deeply, restored credibility, and revived Canada’s fiscal health when it was most needed. The Chrétien years were unsentimental. Political capital was spent so financial capital could return. Ottawa shrank so the country could grow. Budget 2025 tries to invoke their spirit but not their actions. Nothing in this plan resembles the structural surgery of the mid 1990s.
Stephen Harper, by contrast, treated balanced budgets as policy and principle. Even during the global financial crisis, his government used stimulus as a bridge, not a way of life. It cut taxes widely and consistently, limited public service growth, and placed the long-term burden on restraint rather than rhetoric. Budget 2025 nods toward Harper’s focus on productivity and capital assets, yet it rejects the tax relief and spending controls that made his budgets coherent.
Then there is Justin Trudeau, the high tide of redistribution, vacuous identity politics, and deficit-as-virtue posturing. Ottawa expanded into an ideological planner for everything, including housing, climate, childcare, inclusion portfolios, and every new identity category. Much of that ideological scaffolding consisted of mere words, weakening the principle of equality under the law and encouraging the government to referee culture rather than administer policy.
Budget 2025 is the first hint of retreat from that style. The identity program fireworks are dimmer, though they have not disappeared. The social policy boosterism is quieter. Perhaps fiscal gravity has begun to whisper in the prime minister’s ear.
However, one cannot confuse tone for transformation.
Spending is still vast. Deficits grew. The new fiscal anchor, balancing only the operating budget, is weaker than the one it replaced. The budget relies on the hopeful assumption that Ottawa’s capital spending will attract private investment on a scale that economists politely describe as ambitious.
The housing file illustrates the contradiction. The budget announces new funding for the construction of purpose-built rentals and a larger federal role in modular and subsidized housing builds. These are presented as productivity measures, yet they continue the Trudeau-era instinct to centralize housing policy rather than fix the levers that matter. Permitting delays, zoning rigidity, municipal approvals, and labour shortages continue to slow actual construction. Ottawa spends, but the foundations still cure at the same pace.
Defence spending tells the same story. Budget 2025 offers incremental funding and some procurement gestures, but it avoids the core problem: Canada’s procurement system is broken. Delays stretch across decades. Projects become obsolete before contracts are signed. The system cannot buy a ship, an aircraft, or an armoured vehicle without cost overruns and missed timelines. Spending more through this machinery will waste time and money. It adds motion, not capability.
Most importantly, the structural problems remain untouched: no regulatory reform for major projects, no tax competitiveness agenda, no strategy for shrinking a federal bureaucracy that has grown faster than the economy it governs. Ottawa presides over a low-productivity country but insists that a new accounting framework will solve what decades of overregulation and policy clutter have created. More bluster.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From an Alberta vantage, the pivot is welcome but inadequate. The economy that pays for Confederation, energy, mining, agriculture, and transportation receives more rhetorical respect in Budget 2025, yet the same regulatory thicket that blocks pipelines and mines remains intact. The government praises capital formation but still undermines the key sectors that generate it.
Budget 2025 tries to walk like Chrétien and talk like Harper while spending like Trudeau. That is not a transformation; it is a costume change. The country needed a budget that prioritized growth rooted in tangible assets and real productivity. What it got instead is a rhetorical turn without the courage to cut, streamline, or reform.
Canada does not require a new budgeting vocabulary. It requires a government willing to govern in the best interest of the country.
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
Help us bring you more quality research and commentary.
Carney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
Cost of bureaucracy balloons 80 per cent in 10 years: Public Accounts
Alberta to protect three pro-family laws by invoking notwithstanding clause
Edmonton and Red Deer to Host 2027 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship
Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.
‘Holy Sh*t!’: Podcaster Aghast As Charlie Kirk’s Security Leader Reads Texts He Allegedly Sent University Police
Activists Claim Dealers Can Fix Canada’s Drug Problem
-
Carbon Tax2 days ago
Carney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Business2 days ago
Budget 2025: Ottawa Fakes a Pivot and Still Spends Like Trudeau
-
Health2 days agoTens of thousands are dying on waiting lists following decades of media reluctance to debate healthcare
-
Opinion1 day agoLandmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away
-
International10 hours ago“The Largest Funder of Al-Shabaab Is the Minnesota Taxpayer”
-
Alberta11 hours agoPremier Smith explains how private clinics will be introduced in Alberta
-
Focal Points1 day agoSTUDY: TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube Shorts Induce Measurable “Brain Rot”
-
International11 hours ago50 of the 315 students and 12 staff abducted from Catholic school in Nigeria last week have escaped