Federal carbon tax a hot issue today

When it comes to Canada and carbon taxes, times have certainly changed in very little time.

We had wondered how long Ottawa’s national carbon-tax system would last when, after implementing it as a mandatory national scheme, the feds suddenly announced an exemption for home heating oil in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Pressed by NL Premier Andrew Furey, a Liberal, and Liberal MP Ken McDonald, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the exemption last October, saying it would help Atlantic Canadians with the cost of living.

The exemption would last until March 31, 2027. And for NL households that burn oil, the feds said it would mean an average $250 annual savings.

Alberta and Saskatchewan saw the exemption as unmitigated vote-buying politics, and they weren’t alone.

On Jan. 1, 2024, Saskatchewan stopped collecting the federal carbon tax on natural gas used for home heating in that province. Premier Scott Moe declared that this was in response to Ottawa’s “unfair” exemption for Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Trudeau has provided a carbon tax exemption on home heating for families in one part of the country, but not here. It’s unfair, it’s unacceptable.”

Saskatchewan went on to challenge the exemption, in federal court, on constitutional grounds, and won a temporary injunction. Later, pending a final court decision, Saskatchewan and Ottawa agreed that the province would be responsible for “50 percent of the outstanding tax amounts.”

But Ottawa’s carbon tax (oops, sorry, Ottawa likes to call it “carbon pricing” and “carbon pollution pricing”) has now run into new political trouble.

First, national NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, who had voted for the carbon tax, pulled out of a deal supporting Trudeau’s Liberal Party in government.

Singh then went on to slam Trudeau’s approach of exempting fuels in favored geography. And he said the NDP would come up with a system that doesn’t “put the burden on the backs of working people.”

Then, British Columbia Premier David Eby, long a strong supporter of the carbon tax — but facing an election on Oct. 19 — suddenly declared: “I think it’s critical to also recognize that the context and the challenge for British Columbians have changed. A lot of British Columbians are struggling with affordability.

“If the federal government decides to remove the legal backstop requiring us to have a consumer carbon tax in British Columbia, we will end the consumer carbon tax in British Columbia.”

Would Prime Minister Trudeau remove the backstop requirement?

Apparently not. Instead, Environment and Climate Change Canada is looking to run a $7-million “climate literacy and action” advertising campaign to promote the carbon tax and the quarterly rebates that many Canadians receive under it.

And the prime minister, earlier this year, declined to meet the premiers of Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador on the issue.

“The carbon tax has contributed to increasing stress and financial pain for millions of Canadians,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wrote to the prime minister.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford wrote: “While we all have a role in protecting the environment, it cannot be done on the backs of hardworking people.”

But Trudeau turned down the call for a meeting: “We had a meeting on carbon pricing and every single premier came together to work on establishing a pan-Canadian framework on climate change years ago.

“And part of it was that there would be a federal backstop to make sure that pollution wasn’t free anywhere across the country.”

Whether the carbon tax has “worked” or not to reduce pollution is an open question. Supporters say yes. Opponents say no.

A poll late last year found that Canadians were feeling slightly more confident in the carbon tax’s effectiveness at combating climate change — but uncertainty was still high.

But the Liberal government is already getting a message from voters — having lost in two recent by-elections in Manitoba and Quebec, and in an earlier one in a “safe seat” in Ontario (Toronto-St. Paul’s).

In the Quebec one on Monday, the Liberals lost their longtime safe seat of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun to the NDP, by just over 200 votes. It had been a Liberal stronghold for years, won by more than 20 percent of the vote in previous campaigns.

The next federal election will take place on or before October 2025, and Trudeau’s opponents have already been loudly cranking up “Axe the Tax” campaigns.

And that means the carbon tax.

Related Topics:#ResourceWorks FederalCarbonTax

Up Next

“Mainstream media bias is beyond biased”

Don't Miss

RBC boss says the U.S. needs Canada to supply oil and gas to Asia for energy security

Todayville

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

Hamas, Palestinians paraded dead babies coffins through streets before handover to Israel

Health / 7 hours ago

RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B

National / 8 hours ago

Andrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know

Business

Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

In the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S.

According to a new Statistics Canada report, government regulation has grown over the years and it’s hurting Canada’s economy. The report, which uses a regulatory burden measure devised by KPMG and Transport Canada, shows government regulatory requirements increased 2.1 per cent annually from 2006 to 2021, with the effect of reducing the business sector’s GDP, employment, labour productivity and investment.

Specifically, the growth in regulation over these years cut business-sector investment by an estimated nine per cent and “reduced business start-ups and business dynamism,” cut GDP in the business sector by 1.7 percentage points, cut employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points.

While the report only covered regulatory growth through 2021, in the past four years an avalanche of new regulations has made the already existing problem of overregulation worse.

The Trudeau government in particular has intensified its regulatory assault on the extraction sector with a greenhouse gas emissions cap, new fuel regulations and new methane emissions regulations. In the last few years, federal diktats and expansions of bureaucratic control have swept the auto industry, child care, supermarkets and many other sectors.

Again, the negative results are evident. Over the past nine years, Canada’s cumulative real growth in per-person GDP (an indicator of incomes and living standards) has been a paltry 1.7 per cent and trending downward, compared to 18.6 per cent and trending upward in the United States. Put differently, if the Canadian economy had tracked with the U.S. economy over the past nine years, average incomes in Canada would be much higher today.

Also in the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S., and only about two-thirds as much new capital (on average) as workers in other developed countries.

Consequently, Canada is mired in an economic growth crisis—a fact that even the Trudeau government does not deny. “We have more work to do,” said Anita Anand, then-president of the Treasury Board, last August, “to examine the causes of low productivity levels.” The Statistics Canada report, if nothing else, confirms what economists and the business community already knew—the regulatory burden is much of the problem.

Of course, regulation is not the only factor hurting Canada’s economy. Higher federal carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher top marginal income tax rates are also weakening Canada’s productivity, GDP, business investment and entrepreneurship.

Finally, while the Statistics Canada report shows significant economic costs of regulation, the authors note that their estimate of the effect of regulatory accumulation on GDP is “much smaller” than the effect estimated in an American study published several years ago in the Review of Economic Dynamics. In other words, the negative effects of regulation in Canada may be even higher than StatsCan suggests.

Whether Statistics Canada has underestimated the economic costs of regulation or not, one thing is clear: reducing regulation and reversing the policy course of recent years would help get Canada out of its current economic rut. The country is effectively in a recession even if, as a result of rapid population growth fuelled by record levels of immigration, the GDP statistics do not meet the technical definition of a recession.

With dismal GDP and business investment numbers, a turnaround—both in policy and outcomes—can’t come quickly enough for Canadians.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

‘Out and out fraud’: DOGE questions $2 billion Biden grant to left-wing ‘green energy’ nonprofit`

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The EPA under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a ‘green energy’ group that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a “green energy” nonprofit that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists such as former Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams.

Founded in 2023 as a coalition of nonprofits, corporations, unions, municipalities, and other groups, Power Forward Communities (PFC) bills itself as “the first national program to finance home energy efficiency upgrades at scale, saving Americans thousands of dollars on their utility bills every year.” It says it “will help homeowners, developers, and renters swap outdated, inefficient appliances with more efficient and modernized options, saving money for years ahead and ensuring our kids can grow up with cleaner, pollutant-free air.”

The organization’s website boasts more than 300 member organizations across 46 states but does not detail actual activities. It does have job postings for three open positions and a form for people to sign up for more information.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project, along with new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, are raising questions about the $2 billion grant PFC received from the Biden EPA’s National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF), ostensibly for the “affordable decarbonization of homes and apartments throughout the country, with a particular focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities.”

PFC’s announcement of the grant is the organization’s only press release to date and is alarming given that the organization had somehow reported only $100 in revenue at the end of 2023.

“I made a commitment to members of Congress and to the American people to be a good steward of tax dollars and I’ve wasted no time in keeping my word,” Zeldin said. “When we learned about the Biden administration’s scheme to quickly park $20 billion outside the agency, we suspected that some organizations were created out of thin air just to take advantage of this.” Zeldin previously announced the Biden EPA had deposited the $20 billion in a Citibank account, apparently to make it harder for the next administration to retrieve and review it.

“As we continue to learn more about where some of this money went, it is even more apparent how far-reaching and widely accepted this waste and abuse has been,” he added. “It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion. That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue.”

Daniel Turner, executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, told the Beacon that in his opinion “for an organization that has no experience in this, that was literally just established, and had $100 in the bank to receive a $2 billion grant — it doesn’t just fly in the face of common sense, it’s out and out fraud.”

Prominent among PFC’s insiders is Abrams, the former Georgia House minority leader best known for persistent false claims about having the state’s gubernatorial election stolen from her in 2018. Abrams founded two of PFC’s partner organizations (Southern Economic Advancement Project and Fair Count) and serves as lead counsel for a third group (Rewiring America) in the coalition. A longtime advocate of left-wing environmental policies, Abrams is also a member of the national advisory board for advocacy group Climate Power.