From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Mark Carney, our next prime minister, has floated a climate policy plan that he says will be better for Canadians than the “divisive [read: widely hated] consumer carbon tax.”

But in reality, Carney’s plan is an exercise in misdirection. Under his plan, instead of paying the “consumer carbon tax” directly and receiving carbon rebates, Canadians will pay more via higher prices for products that flow from Canada’s “large industrial emitters” who Carney plans to saddle with higher carbon taxes, indirectly imposing the consumer carbon tax by passing those costs onto Canadians.

Carney also wants to shift government subsidies to consumer products of so-called “clean technologies.” As Carney told the National Observer, “We’re introducing changes so that if you decide to insulate your home, install a heat pump, or switch to a fuel-efficient car, those companies will pay you—not the taxpayer, not the government, but those companies.” What Carney does not mention is that much of the costs imposed on “those companies” will also be folded into the costs of the products consumers buy, but the cause of rising prices will be less distinguishable and attributable to government action.

Moreover, Carney says he wants to make Canada a “clean energy superpower” and “expand and modernize our energy infrastructure so that we are less dependent on foreign suppliers, and the United States as a customer.” But this too is absurd. Far from being in any way poised to become a “clean energy superpower,” Canada likely won’t meet its own projected electricity demand by 2050 under existing environmental regulations.

For example, to generate the electricity needed through 2050 solely with solar power, Canada would need to build 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project, which would take about 1,700 construction-years to accomplish. If we went with wind power to meet future demand, Canada would need to build 574 wind-power installations the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupre wind-power station, which would take about 1,150 construction years to accomplish. And if we relied solely on hydropower, we’d need to build 134 hydro-power facilities the size of the Site C power station in British Columbia, which would take 938 construction years to accomplish. Finally, if we relied solely on nuclear power, we’d need to construct 16 new nuclear plants the size of Ontario’s Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, taking “only” 112 construction years to accomplish.

Again, Mark Carney’s climate plan is an exercise in misdirection—a rhetorical sleight of hand to convince Canadians that he’ll lighten the burden on taxpayers and shift away from the Trudeau government’s overzealous climate policies of the past decade. But scratch the surface of the Carney plan and you’ll see climate policies that will hit Canadian consumers harder, with likely higher prices for goods and services. As a federal election looms, Canadians should demand from all candidates—no matter their political stripe—a detailed plan to rekindle Canada’s energy sector and truly lighten the load for Canadians and their families.

By Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing 79 per cent of Canadians are against the upcoming member of Parliament pay raise on April 1.

“The poll results are crystal clear: the vast majority of Canadians don’t think MPs deserve a raise,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “It seems like the only Canadians who strongly support an MP pay raise are the politicians themselves.”

The Leger poll asked Canadians if they support or oppose the upcoming MP pay raise. Results of the poll show:

• 59 per cent strongly oppose
• 20 per cent somewhat oppose
• 10 per cent somewhat support
• 3 per cent strongly support
• 9 per cent unsure

Among those decided on the issue, 86 per cent of Canadians oppose the MP pay raise.

MPs give themselves pay raises each year on April 1, based on the average annual increase in union contracts with corporations that have 500 or more employees.

A backbench MP’s salary is currently $203,100. A minister collects $299,900, while the prime minister takes home a $406,200 annual salary.

The CTF estimates this year’s pay raise will amount to an extra $6,700 for backbench MPs, $9,800 for ministers and $13,400 for the prime minister, based on contract data published by the federal government.

After this year’s pay raise, backbench MPs will receive a $209,800 annual salary, according to CTF estimates. A minister will collect $309,700 and the prime minister will take home $419,600.

“Do MPs really want to pad their pockets with higher pay as they head into an election?” Terrazzano said. “After a pandemic, tax hikes, a cost-of-living crisis and now a painful tariff war, there’s no way MPs should be taking more money from their constituents.

“If politicians want to be true champions for taxpayers, they must push to stop this MP pay raise.”

The federal government stopped automatic MP pay raises from 2010 to 2013.