Statistics Canada Is Hiring For The 2026 Census

Statistics Canada is calling on Canadians to apply for a wide range of positions with the 2026 Census, offering a meaningful way to support their communities while gaining valuable work experience. With roughly 32,000 jobs available nationwide, recruitment has officially begun.

Census information is essential for planning the future of communities across the country. The data collected helps guide decisions on key public services, including employment initiatives, education, transit, and healthcare. By joining the 2026 Census team, workers play a direct role in ensuring governments and organizations have reliable information to shape programs that benefit everyone.

Positions are located within local communities and will run from March to July 2026, depending on the role and region. Flexibility is important, as employees may need to work during daytime hours, evenings, and weekends.

The roles come with competitive wages: $25.87 per hour for non‑supervisory positions and $31.32 per hour for supervisory roles, plus eligible expenses. This makes census work an appealing short‑term opportunity for those seeking flexible schedules and community‑oriented employment.

Statistics Canada encourages applicants to apply online and to spread the word to friends and family. Assistance is available for anyone who needs support during the application process, helping ensure these opportunities are accessible to as many people as possible.

Taking part in the census is more than temporary work—it’s a chance to strengthen the accuracy of national data and contribute to the long‑term well‑being of local communities.

APPLY NOW

Critics Say Canada Is Importing LNG It Could Produce at Home

Canada’s stance on liquefied natural gas (LNG) is facing renewed criticism, as opponents argue the federal government’s long‑held claim that there is “no business case” for Canadian LNG exports no longer aligns with reality — especially now that the country is importing LNG from overseas.

For years, federal leaders have maintained that exporting Canadian natural gas as LNG was not economically viable. Critics say this position slowed or halted key infrastructure projects — including pipelines and coastal export terminals — that would have enabled Western Canadian gas to reach global markets.

Because of these delays, Canada failed to build meaningful LNG export capacity despite being one of the world’s top natural gas producers. During that time, countries such as Germany, Japan, and Greece expressed interest in Canadian LNG, but industry proponents were repeatedly told that the economics did not justify major investment.

The situation took a striking turn when Canada recently imported a full LNG shipment from Egypt. The cargo was liquefied at the Idku terminal, shipped across the Atlantic, and unloaded at the Saint John import facility in New Brunswick, where it was regasified and fed into the domestic system. Critics argue this demonstrates that both supply and demand clearly exist — and that Canada’s policy environment has constrained domestic production and export opportunities.

Opposition parties have seized on the import as evidence that the government’s “no business case” stance has allowed other countries to dominate global LNG markets while Canada missed out on jobs, investment, and the chance to help displace higher‑emission fuels like coal abroad.

These concerns have surfaced repeatedly in the House of Commons, with MPs pointing to international partners that sought Canadian LNG and arguing that federal policies prevented the infrastructure needed to meet that demand.

Supporters of the government’s approach counter that climate commitments and emissions standards must guide decisions on large fossil fuel projects. They also note that global LNG prices, construction costs, and market volatility shape investment choices, and they highlight ongoing discussions about expanding energy infrastructure — including potential export capacity in Eastern Canada.

The debate ultimately reflects larger questions about Canada’s place in global energy markets, how to balance economic opportunity with climate goals, and the extent to which federal policy encourages or discourages private‑sector investment. With LNG remaining a major global energy commodity, decisions made now will shape Canada’s competitiveness well into the future.

Timeline: Canadian LNG Policy and Development

Year	Event	Significance
2005–2010	Initial LNG export proposals	Early companies propose coastal LNG export terminals in British Columbia to serve Asian markets; government reviews environmental and economic feasibility.
2011	Federal government studies LNG export economics	Officials assess global LNG demand and Canadian costs, concluding that infrastructure investments were high and market risks significant.
2014–2015	Liberal and Conservative governments debate LNG exports	Policy uncertainty grows as governments question the economic justification for large-scale LNG exports amid fluctuating global prices.
2016	LNG Canada project receives federal environmental approval	The first major project gets greenlight, but financing and construction timelines face delays; debates continue over climate impacts.
2018	FID (Final Investment Decision) delays	Companies cite market risks, pricing volatility, and lack of regulatory clarity, delaying the start of LNG export projects.
2020	Federal government emphasizes “no business case” for Canadian LNG	Government officials argue that exporting LNG is not economically viable under current market conditions; critics say this discourages investment.
2022	Multiple proposed projects stall or cancel	Several BC LNG terminal projects fail to secure financing or government approvals, reinforcing the perception that Canada is losing ground in global LNG markets.
2025	Canada imports LNG from Egypt	Despite being a major natural gas producer, Canada imports LNG to meet domestic demand, illustrating ongoing supply gaps and infrastructure challenges.
2026	Calls for policy review grow	Opposition politicians argue that Canada’s export policies have ceded global markets to competitors and that domestic LNG could provide jobs, trade opportunities, and climate benefits abroad.

Canadians To Face More Tax Hikes In 2026

Canadians could see their overall tax burden rise in 2026, according to a new analysis from a national taxpayers’ advocacy group, despite the federal government’s plans for targeted tax cuts.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) says that although some income tax reductions are scheduled, increases to payroll deductions and other federal levies are likely to outweigh those savings for many families.

A key change is the planned reduction to the lowest federal personal income tax bracket. The government has promoted the cut as a measure to improve affordability for lower‑ and middle‑income earners. The CTF, however, argues that any benefit will be modest once other tax‑related cost increases are taken into account.

Payroll taxes are set to climb in 2026, with higher Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Employment Insurance (EI) contributions. These mandatory deductions affect most workers and are split between employees and employers. According to the CTF, the combined increases could cost individual workers several hundred dollars over the year, reducing disposable income.

The report also points to the ongoing effects of carbon pricing. Although the consumer carbon tax was removed in 2025, the industrial carbon price remains and is scheduled to rise again in 2026. The CTF contends that businesses pass these costs on to consumers through higher prices for goods, services, and transportation, adding to inflationary pressures.

Another expected increase comes from federal alcohol excise taxes, which automatically adjust each year based on inflation. This means beer, wine, and spirits are set for another tax hike in April 2026, affecting both consumers and hospitality businesses.

CTF federal director Franco Terrazzano says the combined impact of these measures means Canadians should not anticipate meaningful tax relief next year. He argues that government revenues are growing more because of higher taxes and mandatory contributions than from economic expansion.

The federal government, meanwhile, defends its approach, highlighting targeted tax cuts and social programs aimed at affordability and economic stability. Officials also emphasize that CPP enhancements are designed to strengthen long‑term retirement security, framing payroll contributions as investments rather than traditional taxes.

Critics maintain that with many Canadians already facing high housing costs, rising food prices, and elevated interest rates, additional deductions and indirect taxes will further strain household budgets.

As 2026 nears, the CTF is urging the federal government to broaden tax relief and rein in spending growth, warning that without changes, Canadians will continue to feel the effects of an increasing overall tax load.

Ottawa Greenlights Plastic Straw Production For Everywhere Except Canada

The federal government has reversed part of its planned phase‑out of single‑use plastics, allowing Canadian manufacturers to resume exporting products such as plastic straws, cutlery, and other items that remain banned within Canada.

The shift comes just as a full export ban was about to take effect. Under the updated policy, companies may once again produce these plastics as long as they are intended exclusively for foreign markets. Government officials say the change reflects concerns that prohibiting exports would damage Canada’s plastics industry without meaningfully reducing global pollution.

A regulatory analysis from the Environment Department found that halting exports would have little impact on worldwide plastic waste, noting that international buyers would simply turn to suppliers in other countries. Canada’s plastics sector generates tens of billions of dollars in economic activity annually—much of it export‑driven—and industry groups had warned that an export ban could jeopardize jobs and investment.

The broader regulatory effort began in 2022, when Ottawa introduced rules banning the manufacture and domestic sale of several common single‑use plastic items, including straws, grocery bags, stir sticks, cutlery, and six‑pack rings. While these products remain prohibited for use within Canada, the new reversal allows manufacturers to meet demand abroad.

Environmental organizations have sharply criticized the decision, arguing that it weakens Canada’s leadership on pollution and climate issues. They contend that permitting production solely for export sends conflicting signals about the country’s commitment to reducing plastic waste and could undermine global efforts to curb plastic pollution.

The government’s policy adjustment underscores the ongoing tension between environmental goals and economic considerations as Canada continues to refine its plastics strategy in the years ahead.

How the Canadian Government Broadened State Powers in 2025

In 2025, the federal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney introduced a series of legislative changes that critics argue significantly expanded state authority while reducing individual freedoms.

One of the most debated developments was the passage of Bill C-2, a wide-ranging financial and border security bill. While presented as routine administrative legislation, opponents say it granted the federal government expanded powers to access personal information at border crossings. This included access to sensitive records such as medical, therapeutic, and postal information without requiring a warrant. Civil liberties advocates raised concerns that these measures weakened long-standing privacy protections.

Later in the year, attention turned to Bill C-9, which the government framed as an effort to combat hate speech. Critics, however, argued that the legislation crossed into new territory by allowing increased oversight of religious expression. Concerns were raised that sermons, teachings, and faith-based communications could be subject to government scrutiny, marking a shift in how religious freedom has historically been protected in Canada.

Beyond individual pieces of legislation, observers pointed to a broader pattern of increased federal control over financial systems, personal data, and public expression. These concerns were reinforced by earlier government actions, including the freezing of bank accounts during past protest movements, which critics say demonstrated a willingness to bypass traditional legal safeguards during times of political tension.

Those skeptical of the government’s direction argue that the cumulative effect of these measures represents a fundamental change in the relationship between Canadians and the state. Rather than one dramatic policy shift, they say the expansion of power occurred gradually, with limited public debate and minimal transparency.

Supporters of the government maintain that the measures were necessary to address security, misinformation, and social cohesion in an increasingly complex world. Critics counter that safeguarding democracy requires constant vigilance, particularly when emergency powers or broad authorities become normalized.

The debate over state power and personal freedom is expected to remain a central issue in Canadian politics as the long-term impacts of the 2025 legislative agenda continue to unfold.