Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Bank of Canada admits eliminating carbon tax could reduce inflation by 16%

Published

1 year ago

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem testified that cutting the tax would create a one-time reduction of inflation by 0.6%, which is 16% of Canada’s total inflation rate

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem admitted that Trudeau’s carbon tax is responsible for 16% of Canada’s current inflation rate. 

On October 30, Macklem told the House of Commons finance committee that eliminating the carbon tax would reduce inflation by 0.6%, which is 16% of Canada’s total inflation rate.  

“That would create a one-time drop in inflation of 0.6 percentage points,” Macklem told Conservative MP Philip Lawrence, who had questioned the tax’s effect on the economy. 

Currently, Canada’s inflation rate is at 3.8% which means that a decrease of 0.6% by eliminating the tax would result in a 16% decrease in the overall inflation. 

Lawrence further questioned if eliminating the tax would ease the economic situation, considering it would mean a “sizable drop in inflation.” However, Macklem explained that cutting the tax would only affect inflation for one year. 

“It would be helpful if monetary and fiscal policy was rowing in the same direction,” he added, explaining that government spending has made keeping interest rates steady a difficult task.  

“Any standard economic textbook will tell you if you cut government spending that will tend to slow growth, raise the unemployment rate, and reduce inflation,” Macklem explained.  

In September, Macklem admitted that food costs are of particular concern as “[m]eat’s up six percent, bread’s up 13 percent, coffee’s up eight percent, baby food’s up nine percent. If you look at food overall it is up nine percent.”    

To combat this inflation, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates to 5 percent, the highest benchmark rate in 22 years. Another increase is expected in October.   

In addition to deficit spending, others have pointed to the Trudeau government’s ongoing carbon taxes and energy regulations as one of the reasons for the sharp increases in the cost of living.  

According to a March report, Trudeau’s carbon tax is costing Canadians hundreds of dollars annually as government rebates remain insufficient to compensate for the increased fuel prices.   

Last week, Prime Minster Justin Trudeau suspended his carbon tax on home heating oil, amid rising costs of living and his decreasing popularity across multiple polls.   

Under the new regulations, home heating oil is exempted from the carbon tax, while rural residents will receive a 10 percent increase in the carbon tax rebate payments. The increase is set to climb to 20 percent beginning next year.    

In March, the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated the total carbon tax costs for fuel in 2023 minus government rebates. The steepest increase is for Albertans, who will pay an average of $710 extra per household. Following Alberta is Ontario with a $478 increase.   

Prince Edward Island households will pay an extra $465, Nova Scotia $431, Saskatchewan $410, Manitoba $386, and Newfoundland and Labrador $347.     

The increased costs are only expected to rise as a recent report revealed that a carbon tax of more than $350 per tonne is needed to reach Trudeau’s net-zero goals by 2050.   

Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $65 per tonne, but the Trudeau government has a goal of $170 per tonne by 2030.   

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
National / 3 hours ago

Liberal Leadership Launch…

COVID-19 / 6 hours ago

BREAKING: Days before Trump Inauguration HHS fires doctor in charge of gain of function research project

International / 6 hours ago

Bill Maher Torches California’s Disastrous Wildfire Response in Brutal Monologue

Business

Our energy policies have made us more vulnerable to Trump’s tariffs

Published on January 19, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jason Clemens

As Donald Trump, who will be sworn in as president on Monday, threatens to impose tariffs on Canadian exports including oil and natural gas, the calls from some Canadian politicians and analysts for greater energy trade diversification grow louder. However, these calls highlight a hard truth—Canada has repeatedly foregone opportunities to reduce our dependence on the United States by cancelling already approved pipelines and failing to approve new pipeline and LNG projects that could have increased our access to global markets.

The U.S. is not just Canada’s largest energy customer—it’s nearly our only customer. In 2023, 97 per cent of crude oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports were sent south of the border. This dependence on the U.S. for exports leaves Canadian producers and the Canadian economy exposed to policy shifts in Washington and even state capitals.

Consider Energy East, a pipeline proposed by TransCanada (now TC Energy) to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and export terminals in Atlantic Canada. The pipeline would have reduced Atlantic Canada’s reliance on imported oil and opened export markets for Canadian oil to Europe.

However, in 2017 the Trudeau government introduced new criteria for evaluating and approving major pipeline projects, and for the first time assessments included not only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from constructing the pipeline but also emissions from producing and using the oil it would transport. Later that year, TransCanada suspended its application for the project, effectively cancelling it. The CEO of TransCanada blamed “changed circumstances” but many observers recognized it was a combination of the new regulations and opposition from Quebec, particularly the City of Montreal. Consequently, the refineries in Atlantic Canada continue to rely on imported oil.

A year earlier in 2016, the Trudeau government cancelled the already-approved Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have connected Alberta oil production with the west coast and created significant export opportunities to Asian markets.

Canada is even more dependent on the U.S. for natural gas exports than oil exports. In 2023, Canada exported approximately 84 billion cubic metres of natural gas—all to the U.S.—via 39 pipelines, again leaving producers in Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes.

Meanwhile, Canada currently has no operational infrastructure for exporting liquified natural gas (LNG). While LNG Canada, the country’s first LNG export terminal, is expected to become operational this year in British Columbia, it’s long overdue.

Indeed, several energy companies have cancelled or delayed high-profile LNG projects in Canada due largely to onerous regulations that make approvals uncertain or even unlikely, including the $36 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in 2017, the $9 billion Énergie Saguenay LNG project in 2020, Kitimat LNG in 2021 and East Coast Canada LNG in 2023.

This all adds up to a missed opportunity, as global demand for LNG increases. If governments in Canada allowed or even facilitated more development of LNG facilities, Canadian companies could supply high-demand regions such as Asia and Europe. Indeed, during Europe’s 2022 energy crisis, Germany and several other countries turned to Canada for reliable LNG supply, but the Trudeau government rejected the requests.

The contrast with the U.S. is stark. Since 2011, 18 LNG export facilities have been proposed in Canada but only one—LNG Canada Phase 1—is nearing completion, more than 12 years after it was announced. Meanwhile, as of January 2025, the U.S. has built eight LNG export terminals and approved 20 more, securing its position as a global LNG leader.

Years of inaction and regulatory roadblocks have left Canadian energy producers overly dependent on a single trading partner and vulnerable to shifting U.S. policies. The looming threat of tariffs should be a wake-up call. To secure its energy future, Canada must address the regulatory barriers that have long hindered progress and prioritize the development of infrastructure to connect our energy resources to global markets.

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Trudeau leaves office with worst economic growth record in recent Canadian history

Published on January 18, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In the days following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, there has been much ink spilt about his legacy. One effusively positive review of Trudeau’s tenure claimed that his successors “will be hard-pressed to improve on his economic track record.”

But this claim is difficult to square with the historical record, which shows the economic story of the Trudeau years has been one of dismal growth. Indeed, when the growth performance of Canada’s economy is properly measured, Trudeau has the worst record of any prime minister in recent history.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic success. However, growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP—an indicator of living standards and incomes—remains an important and broad measure. In short, it measures how quickly the economy is growing while adjusting for inflation and population growth.

Back when he was first running for prime minister in 2015, Trudeau recognized the importance of long-term economic growth, often pointing to slow growth under his predecessor Stephen Harper. On the campaign trail, Trudeau blasted Harper for having the “worst record on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.”

And growth during the Harper years was indeed slow. The Harper government endured the 2008/09 global financial crisis and subsequent weak recovery, particularly in Ontario. During Harper’s tenure as prime minister, per-person GDP growth was 0.5 per cent annually—which is lower than his predecessors Brian Mulroney (0.8 per cent) and Jean Chrétien (2.4 per cent).

So, growth was weak under Harper, but Trudeau misdiagnosed the causes. Shortly after taking office, Trudeau said looser fiscal policy—with more spending, borrowing and bigger deficits—would help spur growth in Canada (and indeed around the world).

Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth. In fact, things went from bad to worse. Annual per-person GDP growth under Trudeau (0.3 per cent) was even worse than under Harper.

The reasons for weak economic growth (under Harper and Trudeau) are complicated. But when it comes to performance, there’s no disputing that Trudeau’s record is worse than any long-serving prime minister in recent history. According to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute, which compared the growth performance of the five most recent long-serving prime ministers, annual per-person GDP growth was highest under Chrétien followed by Martin, Mulroney, Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Of course, some defenders will blame COVID for Trudeau’s poor economic growth record, but you can’t reasonably blame the steep but relatively short pandemic-related recession for nearly a decade of stagnation.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic performance, but per-person inflation-adjusted economic growth is an important and widely-used measure of economic success and prosperity. Despite any claims to the contrary, Justin Trudeau’s legacy on economic growth is—in historical terms—dismal. All Canadians should hope that his successor has more success and oversees faster growth in the years ahead.

Continue Reading

Trending

X