Connect with us

News

Should Alberta Reconsider Its Plans For a Carbon Tax?

Published

8 years ago

3 minute read

By Todayville.com Staff

As of January 1st, 2017, a new Carbon Tax will go into effect in Alberta and increase the costs of heating our homes and businesses and the price of gas at the pumps.

This has sparked rallies across the province including one in Red Deer on November 5th, where hundreds showed up at City Hall Park to voice their opposition to a tax they feel won’t make much of a difference to the environment and only hurt the people of this province when it’s already struggling through tough economic times. Many would like to see the government hold a plebiscite on the issue but Premier Rachel Notley says Alberta needs to be a leader in the fight against climate change and reinvest in newer and greener technologies like wind, solar and hydro power, instead of carbon-based non-renewable energy initiatives.

With the election of Donald Trump as President-Elect in the U.S., it’s unlikely he would implement a similar kind of levy in the States, leaving Alberta as one of the few jurisdictions in the world striving to make a difference in that respect.

This is a concern according to the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce. Policy and Advocacy Manager Reg Warkentin wonders what kind of difference Alberta can make in the fight against climate change, when larger emitters such as the U.S., China and India are currently not on board.

Warkentin says there are significant costs involved to both implement the Carbon Levy and to continue to maintain it. He says with Alberta’s economy very much carbon-based including agriculture, many farmers and ranchers for example will see the cost of heating their greenhouses and barns go up, with the transportation industry to also be affected through the rising price of fuel.

Warkentin would like to see more corresponding tax cuts for people and businesses to help off-set the increased costs many will face in an already tough economic climate, such as what B.C. has done in that respect.

Warkentin is also concerned about the impact the Carbon Tax will have on municipalities like Red Deer, adding the City will either have to raise taxes, cut services or a mixture of both.

Although the new Carbon Levy may have a positive impact on the environment and everyone’s health eventually, Warkentin also wonders what the government will do with the revenue from this tax. “Will they use it to invest in greener technology? and if so, “Where does that leave everyone else?”

Take this week’s poll question

(Picture courtesy of the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce)

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
Crime / 30 mins ago

Mexican cartels are a direct threat to Canada’s public safety, and the future of North American trade

Business / 53 mins ago

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Addictions / 3 hours ago

Ontario to restrict Canadian government’s supervised drug sites, shift focus to helping addicts

Business

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill

Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.

In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.

This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.

However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.

Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.

Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.

Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.

Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.

Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.

Authors:

Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill
Continue Reading

National

Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election

Published on November 12, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Pushing back the date would preserve the pensions of some of the MPs who could be voted out of office in October 2025.

Aides to the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed that MPs from the Liberal and New Democratic Party (NDP) did indeed hold closed-door “briefings” to rewrite Canada’s elections laws so that they could push back the date of the next election.

The closed-door talks between the NDP and Liberals confirmed the aides included a revision that would guarantee some of its 28 MPs, including three of Trudeau’s cabinet members, would get a pension.

Allen Sutherland, who serves as the assistant cabinet secretary, testified before the House of Commons affairs committee that the changes to the Elections Act were discussed in the meetings.

“We attended a meeting where the substance of that proposal was discussed,” he said, adding that his “understanding is the briefing was primarily oral.”

According to Sutherland, as reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, it was only NDP and Liberal MPs who attended the secret meetings regarding changes to Canada’s Elections Act via Bill C-65, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act before the bill was introduced in March.

As reported by LifeSiteNews before, the Liberals were hoping to delay the 2025 federal election by a few days in what many see as a stunt to secure pensions for MPs who are projected to lose their seats. Approximately 80 MPs would qualify for pensions should they sit as MPs until at least October 27, 2025, which is the newly proposed election date. The election date is currently set for October 20, 2025.

Sutherland noted when asked by Conservative MP Luc Berthold that he recalled little from the meetings, but he did confirm he attended “two meetings of that kind.”

“Didn’t you find it unusual that a discussion about amending the Elections Act included only two political parties and excluded the others?” Berthold asked.

Sutherland responded, “It’s important to understand what my role was in those meetings which was simply to provide background information.”

“My role was to provide information,” replied Sutherland, who added he could not provide the exact dates of the meetings.

MPs must serve at least six years to qualify for a pension that pays $77,900 a year. Should an election be called today, many MPs would fall short of reaching the six years, hence Bill C-65 was introduced by the Liberals and NDP.

The Liberals have claimed that pushing back the next election date is not over pensions but due to “trying to observe religious holidays,” as noted by Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen.

“Conservatives voted against this bill,” Berthold said, as they are “confident of winning re-election. We don’t need this change.”

Trudeau’s popularity is at a all-time low, but he has refused to step down as PM, call an early election, or even step aside as Liberal Party leader.

As for the amendments to elections laws, they come after months of polling in favour of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre.

A recent poll found that 70 percent of Canadians believe the country is “broken” as Trudeau focuses on less critical issues. Similarly, in January, most Canadians reported that they are worse off financially since Trudeau took office.

Additionally, a January poll showed that 46 percent of Canadians expressed a desire for the federal election to take place sooner rather than the latest mandated date in the fall of 2025.

Continue Reading

Trending

X