Opinion
Feds facing the consequences of the costly carbon tax
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Gage Haubrich
Ottawa unveiled an unorthodox carbon tax communications strategy in Saskatchewan: threats.
Saskatchewan minister responsible for SaskEnergy, Dustin Duncan, recently announced that the Saskatchewan government will not be sending the federal government money to cover its refusal to charge Saskatchewanians the carbon tax on home heating.
In October, Saskatchewan announced that it would stop collecting the federal carbon tax on home heating in the province. The provincial government estimates this will save the average family who uses natural gas to heat their home $400 this year. That’s enough to pay for a couple trips to the grocery store, and with the current prices at the store, families need all the relief they can get.
In response, federal Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson shot back at Saskatchewan, announcing that because of this decision, Saskatchewanians will no longer be receiving the federal government’s carbon tax rebate.
Premier Scott Moe then pointed out the absurdity of the feds by highlighting that Saskatchewanians are still paying the carbon tax on gas, diesel and propane.
This whole mess started because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau backpedalled on his carbon tax and decided take it off heating oil. It’s a fuel primarily used in Atlantic Canada and used by almost zero Saskatchewanians.
Despite the exemption in Atlantic Canada being very similar to Premier Scott Moe’s plan in Saskatchewan, Atlantic Canadians are still on track to receive carbon tax rebates. And Quebec, which pays a lower carbon tax than the rest of the country, hasn’t faced the wrath of the federal government either.
Ottawa instead decided to pick a fight with Saskatchewan. It’s fight that won’t win them any favours in the province. At this point, it’s a good bet the Winnipeg Blue Bombers are more popular in Saskatchewan than the Liberals.
But not do outdo even himself, Wilkinson also added, “The rebate actually provides more money for most families in Saskatchewan.”
If only that were true.
Currently, the carbon tax costs 14 cents per litre of gasoline and will cost the average Saskatchewan family $410 this year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Oh, and that’s including the rebates that Wilkinson is currently threatening to withhold.
Along with the carbon tax, Ottawa also charges a 10 cents per litre federal tax gas tax and then GST on top of the whole price of the gas, including the carbon tax. That means you are paying about two cents per litre in tax-on-tax in GST every time you fill up your vehicle.
And it’s going to get worse because the federal government plans to keep hiking up the carbon tax.
Come April 1, the carbon tax cost jumps to 17 cents per litre. By 2030, it will be 37 cents per litre and cost the average Saskatchewan household $1,723 per year.
And since almost everything we buy is delivered by a truck and then stored inside a store, the costs to transport and sell those items also goes up with the carbon tax.
After the announcement of the carbon tax heating oil exemption, five premiers, including Moe, wrote to Trudeau demanding that he take the carbon tax off all forms of home heating. It’s good to see premiers across the country take a stand, but Moe is the only one taking real action.
Instead of resorting to threats, maybe Ottawa should take the hint and scrap the carbon tax.
Addictions
Ontario to restrict Canadian government’s supervised drug sites, shift focus to helping addicts
From LifeSiteNews
Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government tabled the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act that will place into law specific bans on where such drug consumption sites are located.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford is making good on a promise to close so-called drug “supervision” sites in his province and says his government will focus on helping addicts get better instead of giving them free drugs.
Ford’s Progressive Conservative government on Monday tabled the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act that will place into law specific bans on where such drug consumption sites are located.
Specifically, the new bill will ban “supervised” drug consumption sites from being close to schools or childcare centers. Ten sites will close for now, including five in Toronto.
The new law would prohibit the “establishment and operation of a supervised consumption site at a location that is less than 200 meters from certain types of schools, private schools, childcare centers, Early child and family centers and such other premises as may be prescribed by the regulations.”
It would also in effect ban municipalities and local boards from applying for an “exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) for the purpose of decriminalizing the personal possession of a controlled substance or precursor.”
Lastly, the new law would put strict “limits” on the power municipalities and local boards have concerning “applications respecting supervised consumption sites and safer supply services.”
“Municipalities and local boards may only make such applications or support such applications if they have obtained the approval of the provincial Minister of Health,” the bill reads.
The new bill is part of a larger omnibus bill that makes changes relating to sex offenders as well as auto theft, which has exploded in the province in recent months.
In September, Ford had called the federal government’s lax drug policies tantamount to being the “biggest drug dealer in the entire country” and had vowed to act.
‘No’ new drug sites in Ontario, vows Health Minister
In speaking about the new bill, Ontario Minister of Health Sylvia Jones said the Ford government does not plan to allow municipal requests to the government regarding supervised consumption sites.
“Municipalities and organizations like public health units have to first come to the province because we don’t want them bypassing and getting any federal approval for something that we vehemently disagree with,” Jones told the media on Monday.
She also clarified that “there will be no further safe injection sites in the province of Ontario under our government.”
Ontario will instead create 19 new intensive addiction recovery to help those addicted to deadly drugs.
Alberta and other provinces have had success helping addicts instead of giving them free drugs.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, deaths related to opioid and other drug overdoses in Alberta fell to their lowest levels in years after the Conservative government began to focus on helping addicts via a recovery-based approach instead of the Liberal-minded, so-called “safe-supply” method.
Despite public backlash with respect to supervised drug consumption sites, Health Canada recently approved 16 more drug consumption sites in Ontario. Ford mentioned in the press conference that each day he gets “endless phone calls about needles being in the parks, needles being by the schools and the daycares,” calling the situation “unacceptable.”
The Liberals claim their “safer supply” program is good because it is “providing prescribed medications as a safer alternative to the toxic illegal drug supply to people who are at high risk of overdose.”
However, studies have shown that these programs often lead an excess of deaths from overdose in areas where they are allowed.
While many of the government’s lax drug policies continue, they have been forced to backpedal on some of their most extreme actions.
After the federal government allowed British Columbia to decriminalize the possession of hard drugs including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, meth and MDMA beginning January 1, 2023, reports of overdoses and chaos began skyrocketing, leading the province to request that Trudeau re-criminalize drugs in public spaces.
A week later, the federal government relented and accepted British Columbia’s request.
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.
The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.
For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).
And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.
In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.
This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.
Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.
Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.
Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.
When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.
According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.
Author:
What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?
Health Care Update: Province will deliver health services regionally in seven “health corridors”
Another Mass Grave?
Trump Energy Policies will be executed by New York Rep. Lee Zeldin and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum
-
Brownstone Institute2 days agoThe Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Business2 days agoCarbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
ESG2 days agoCan’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
John Stossel2 days agoGreen Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Daily Caller2 days agoLos Angeles Passes ‘Sanctuary City’ Ordinance In Wake Of Trump’s Deportation Plan
-
Alberta2 days agoProvince considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
Addictions2 days agoBC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day agoToronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square