Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

A carbon tax by any other name

Published

2 years ago

6 minute read

From Canadians for Affordable Energy

Written By Dan McTeague

It turns out that the story circulating last week from The Toronto Star that the Liberals were considering a “rebranding” of their Carbon Taxation program was true. On Wednesday the Liberals announced that the previously known “Climate Action Incentive Payment,” will now be referred to as the “Canada Carbon Rebate.” This was done “in an attempt to tackle what it calls confusion and misconceptions about the scheme.”

According to Liberal Minister Seamus O’Regan “If we can speak the language that people speak, because people say the words ‘carbon,’ they say the words, ‘rebate,’ right? And if we can speak that language, that’s important, so people understand what’s going on here.”

The Liberals seem to actually believe that the problem Canadians have with the carbon tax, and their growing support for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives to “Axe the Tax,” has simply been a matter of Canadians not “understand[ing] what is going on.”

The implication, of course, is that Canadians aren’t really struggling to pay their bills, feed their families and heat their homes right now. That their lives haven’t gotten more expensive overall as the cost of fuel has risen steadily.

That they’re just confused by poor branding — probably some high-priced marketing firm’s fault, really — and that once Trudeau & Co. find the right words, people will finally be happy to pay the tax, and be grateful to get some of their money back, since doing so will — somehow — save the planet.

Which is ridiculous.

It’s worth pointing out that this isn’t even the first time Trudeau’s carbon tax has been rebranded. You might recall that prior to 2018, the scheme was referred to as “carbon pricing” or simply the “carbon tax.” If you look back at Hansard records — the records of Parliamentary debate — you can see that in October 2018, Liberal MPs began referring to the scheme as a ‘price on pollution.’ Of course, calling carbon dioxide, a gas on which all life on earth depends, “pollution” was an obvious attempt to justify taxing Canadians for it.

But no matter what they call the thing, they are determined not to let it go.

Recent polls have indicated that the carbon tax is losing support from Canadians. A Nanos poll showed nearly half of Canadians think the carbon tax is ineffective; another poll indicates most Canadians want it reduced or killed altogether.

So why are the Liberals clinging so desperately to this tax that Canadians don’t support? Going so far as to rebrand, reframe, recommunicate rather than scrap it?

I might start to sound like a broken record here, but the only way to understand the context of the carbon tax, the second carbon tax (the Clean Fuel Standard,) an emissions cap, electric vehicle mandates and on and on, is to recognize that they are all components of the insane Net-Zero-by-2050 scheme dreamed up by Justin Trudeau and his UN and World Economic Forum cronies.

A carbon tax is simply one of the pillars of their Net Zero Agenda which they contend will enable Canada to achieve this nebulous goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050.

Though apparently to achieve it, the tax will need to get progressively more punishing. On April 1 the carbon tax goes up another $15, to $80 per ton, and will continue to rise yearly until it hits $170 a ton in 2030. Canadians are already feeling the pinch and it is hard to imagine it getting worse. But Liberals aren’t concerned with the struggles of everyday people and that is the reality. This has become a communications issue to them, not an existential one.

As to the new name itself, the Trudeau Liberals love to pay lip service to their rebate scheme and claim that Canadians are getting back more than they pay. But as we well know even the Independent Parliamentary Budget Officer found that, contrary to what their talking point, a substantial majority of households are paying more in carbon taxes than they get back.

Their communications plan too is so unhinged that they are pitching the carbon tax as an affordability measure designed to help struggling Canadians. Of course this begs the question: If Canadians are getting back more than they pay in carbon taxes, why take the money in the first place?

The rubber is hitting the road and Canadians have had enough. No matter what it’s called, the carbon tax has made our lives worse.

That will continue to be true, no matter what they call it.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 11 hours ago

Ottawa Bought Jobs That Disappeared: Paying for Trudeau’s EV Gamble

National / 11 hours ago

Election Officials Warn MPs: Canada’s Ballot System Is Being Exploited

Business / 12 hours ago

CBC uses tax dollars to hire more bureaucrats, fewer journalists

Energy

CAPP calls on federal government to reset energy policy before it’s too late

Published on October 26, 2025

By

CAPP CEO warns that Canada’s energy advantage is slipping away through incrementalism and policy paralysis

The productivity fix starts with pragmatism

Lisa Baiton, President and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that Canada is in danger of squandering its global energy advantage through hesitation and half-measures. Representing the upstream oil, gas, and LNG producers that account for more than 20 percent of Canada’s total balance of trade, she said the sector directly employs 450,000 Canadians and supports more than 900,000 jobs nationwide.

“Our industry contributes over one-fifth of Canada’s entire balance of trade,” Baiton said. “Yet we’re operating in a global environment where state actors like Russia, China, and OPEC are weaponizing resources, controlling markets, and coercing trade. Even our closest ally, the United States, is reminding us that we can’t rely on a single customer.”

She argued that the world’s energy order is shifting in ways Canada has been slow to recognize. “Institutional investors are now talking less about energy transition and more about energy addition,” she said, citing Blackrock’s Larry Fink. “Global energy demand is rising across the north and south — and with the AI revolution driving new consumption — we’re going to need all forms of energy for decades to come.”

Baiton said that despite encouraging words from Ottawa about the importance of natural resources, policy still lags reality. “We have a prime minister who recognizes the role of oil and gas in national security and Indigenous reconciliation, but words alone don’t attract capital. Without a clear policy reset, Canada will miss the investment window.”

Incrementalism will be the death of us

Baiton’s warning was blunt: Canada’s productivity crisis and its policy gridlock are converging into a national risk. “We’ve woken up to the threats, but we’re falling back into our usual Canadianism — plodding along,” she said. “This window of opportunity won’t stay open long, and incrementalism will be the death of Canada.”

She said a “pragmatic policy reset” is required, one that reflects the resources Canada actually has and moves with speed. “Supernaturalism will be our death,” she said. “We have to get out of our own way.”

Baiton called for an overhaul of policies built during a previous decade aimed at making oil and gas “existential.” Canada, she said, now has a government that understands “you can’t have national security without energy security,” and that the resource sector is key to funding the military and rebuilding economic strength.

Oil and gas: Canada’s fastest path to growth

She pointed out that Canada ranks last among OECD nations in growth and competitiveness, and said oil and gas is “the only sector that can be leveraged fast enough” to reverse that trajectory. The industry, she added, is already a national leader in Indigenous partnerships.  It’s the largest employer of Indigenous peoples, the largest user of Indigenous supply chains, and a growing field for Indigenous private equity ownership.

But without a policy reset, Baiton said, that progress will stall. “We need to take on key policies like the proposed emissions cap, which is already scaring investors, and fix permitting timelines that run nine to sixteen years. In Germany, it took three years to build three LNG import terminals. In Canada, one project can take 21 years from discovery to dollar.”

The message from Baiton was clear: Canada must rediscover the discipline to build, not just talk about building. The productivity fix starts with speed, pragmatism, and confidence in Canada’s own energy advantage.

Continue Reading

Business

Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder

Published on October 26, 2025

By

Mike Davies calls for ambition and reform to build a stronger Canada

A shift in ambition

A year after the Trans Mountain Expansion Project came into service, Mike Davies, Senior Director of Marine Development at Trans Mountain, told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that the project’s success should mark the beginning of a new national mindset — one defined by ambition, reform, and nation building.

“It took fifteen years to get this version of the project built,” Davies said. “During that time, Canadian producers lost about $50 billion in value because they were selling into a discounted market. We have some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas, but we can only trade with one other country. That’s unusual.”

With the expansion now in operation, that imbalance is shifting. “The differential on Canadian oil has narrowed by about $13 billion,” he said. “That’s value that used to be extracted by the United States and now stays in Canada — supporting healthcare, reconciliation, and energy transformation. About $5 billion of that is in royalties and taxes. It’s meaningful for us as a society.”

Davies rejected the notion that Trans Mountain was a public subsidy. “The federal government lent its balance sheet so that nation-building infrastructure could get built,” he said. “In our first full year of operation, we’ll return more than $1.3 billion to the federal government, rising toward $2 billion annually as cleanup work wraps up.”

At the Westridge Marine Terminal, shipments have increased from one tanker a week to nearly one a day, with more than half heading to Asia. “California remains an important market,” Davies said, “but diversification is finally happening — and it’s vital to our long-term prosperity.”

Fixing the system to move forward

Davies said this moment of success should prompt a broader rethinking of how Canada approaches resource development. “We’re positioned to take advantage of this moment,” he said. “Public attitudes are shifting. Canadians increasingly recognize that our natural resource advantages are a strength, not a liability. The question now is whether governments can seize it — and whether we’ll see that reflected in policy.”

He argued that governments have come to view regulation as a “free good,” without acknowledging its economic consequences. “Over the past decade, we’ve seen policy focus almost exclusively on environmental and reconciliation objectives,” he said. “Those are vital, but the public interest extends well beyond that — to include security, economic welfare, the rule of law, transparency, and democratic participation.”

Davies said good policy should not need to be bypassed to get projects built. “I applaud the creation of a Major Projects Office, but it’s a disgrace that we have to end run the system,” he said. “We need to fix it.”

He called for “deep, long-term reform” to restore scalability and investment confidence. “Linear infrastructure like pipelines requires billions in at-risk capital before a single certificate is issued,” he said. “Canada has a process for everything — we’re a responsible country — but it doesn’t scale for nation-building projects.”

Regulatory reform, he added, must go hand in hand with advancing economic reconciliation. “The challenge of our generation is shifting Indigenous communities from dependence to participation,” he said. “That means real ownership, partnership, and revenue opportunities.”

Davies urged renewed cooperation between Alberta and British Columbia, calling for “interprovincial harmony” on West Coast access. “I’d like to see Alberta see B.C. as part of its constituency,” he said. “And I’d like to see B.C. recognize the need for access.”

He summarized the path forward in plain terms: “We need to stem the exit of capital, create an environment that attracts investment, simplify approvals to one major process, and move decisions from the courts to clear legislation. If we do that, we can finally move from being a market hostage to being a competitor — and a nation builder.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X