Connect with us

Inflation

Chrystia Freeland refuses to answer how much Trudeau government has collected via carbon tax

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland continues to claim that the revenue from the carbon tax ‘goes back to Canadians’ despite data showing otherwise.

Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has refused to reveal how much Liberals have collected via the unpopular carbon tax, which is set to go up again on April 1.  

During a March 21 session in the House of Commons, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Marty Morantz questioned Freeland regarding how much the Liberal government has taken in through the carbon tax.  

“How much has your government collected in carbon taxes?” Morantz asked.  

Freeland responded by dodging the question, stating, “[This is] also an opportunity for me to point out that Manitoba families will be getting $1,200 this year.” 

“Again, minister, if I could just have the number [of] how much you’ve collected in carbon taxes,” Morantz pressed. 

Freeland again refused to answer, instead claiming that the “key point” is that the “price on pollution” is “revenue neutral.”

As Morantz persisted in his question, Freeland alleged that the revenue from the carbon tax is “all money that goes back to Canadians.” 

However, this statement has been proven untrue as the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently revealed that the government rebates are insufficient to cover the rising costs of fuel under Trudeau’s carbon tax, causing many to wonder where their money is actually going.

According to records published in December, the carbon tax cost Canadians nearly $200 million in paperwork since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced the fuel charge in 2019. 

The 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.    

Additionally, Trudeau has refused to pause the carbon tax hike scheduled for April 1, despite seven out of ten provincial premiers and 70 percent of Canadians pleading with him to halt his plan.   

Meanwhile, Trudeau and his cabinet continue to attend lavish retreats, with a recent Liberal retreat costing taxpayers nearly $500,000.   

During a media interview following the nearly $500,000 retreat, Trudeau told Canadians struggling with the high cost of living that times are also difficult for politicians.  

“Yeah, people are facing tough times, and yes, everyone is finding it difficult right now. And as leaders, MPs, parliamentarians of all types, part of our job is to be there to take it, to support it as Canadians are worried and anxious, and put out those solutions,” he said.   

“So yeah, it’s not an easy time to be a politician,” Trudeau lamented.

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

Economy

Ruling-Class Energy Ignorance is a Global Wrecking Ball

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Terry Etam

In the US resides a guy who’s academic and professional credentials are as impressive and impeccable as one can assemble in a career. His Wikipedia professional/academic bio shows top-level roles at a who’s who of globally significant institutions.

Larry Summers has been: student at MIT, PhD from Harvard, US Secretary of the Treasury, director of the National Economic Council, president of Harvard University, Chief Economist of the World Bank, US federal Under Secretary for International Affairs in the Department of Treasury, a managing partner at a hedge fund, and is now on the board of OpenAI.

And yet…just a few weeks ago, Larry Summers made a comment about a bedrock of the economy seems so fundamentally bad that it is enough to shake one’s faith in every one of those institutions. He was talking about whether the US should create a Sovereign Wealth Fund, which is kind of like a national savings account that governments squirrel money into in order to fund future projects or spending requirements. They are very great things indeed, reflecting the wisdom of having savings for a rainy day, but given how politicians love to spend not just the money that they have but everything they can borrow, the idea seems kind of quaintly hopeless in the first place, even though some countries have accomplished it.

But the shocking part of this story is why Summers was against the idea; here’s his quote: “It’s one thing if you’re Norway or the Emirates — that has this huge natural resource that’s going to run out that you’re exporting — to accumulate a big wealth fund. But we’ve got a big trade deficit. We’ve got a big, budget deficit…”

He’s absolutely right about the US’ financial woes; our dear southern neighbour is currently the equivalent of a 28-year-old guy twice divorced with 8 kids between 4 women who is working at the lumber yard and juggles 14 credit cards simultaneously (definitely not implying Canada is much better…).

No, he’s right that those are the biggest fiscal issues to deal with, but what’s crazy is the other part of his statement. He says that Norway and the Emirates should create sovereign wealth funds because they ‘have this huge resource that’s going to run out that you’re exporting’ and thus can/should accumulate a big wealth fund.

Mr. Summers apparently does not understand either depleting natural resources, or the US’ economic powerhouse status due to these resources, or both. Either fact is shocking, given his stature; but his analysis of the situation gives a clue about why major western powers are in such shambles with respect to energy policy.

What Mr. Summers presumably meant is that the US does not have an economy that is dominated by export of a natural resource, such as how oil or natural gas exports are not a fundamental pillar of the economy as with Norway or the Emirates. And yes, the US does have other desperately needed uses for the money derived from exports.

But he seems to think the US is immune from its resources ‘running out’. He doesn’t seem to understand that while the US economy may not be dominated by oil/gas exports, the problem of resource depletion will not matter to the US because it does not dominate the economy. That is the charitable interpretation; the less kind one is that he may well believe that the US will never run out of affordable hydrocarbons.

It’s easy to see where he and other policy makers get the idea. If they think about petroleum reserves at all, they would find coverage in the general mainstream financial press, in publications such as Forbes, a standard of US economic communications that claims over 5 million readers through 43 global editions. The publication is aimed at the who’s who of the financial world: “Forbes is #1 within the business & finance competitive set for reaching influential decision-makers.” It is exactly what a guy like Summers would turn to to understand the US’ resource capability (I doubt he spends much time understanding rock quality).

Here is what Forbes had to say about the US’ hydrocarbon reserves. In an article entitled U.S. Shale Oil and Natural Gas, Underestimated Its Whole Life, the author chronicles how forecasts of US shale potential have been continually underestimating productive capability. Fair enough, that is definitely true. But the extrapolations/conclusions are pretty wild, and, dangerous: “…the reality is that shale production [for both oil and natural gas] has surpassed all expectations namely through the constant advance of technologies and improvement of operations…In fact, the Shale Revolution has shown us that the amount of oil and gas we can produce is essentially unlimited.”

It’s not a bad article on the whole, when it describes how we’ve underestimated shale growth, but these silly concluding assumptions are not good at all. They’re soundbites that reach far more ears because of the source than true expertise from industry journals (including, ahem, this excellent one).  Those soundbites are what lodge in the minds of people like Larry Summers when he huddles with his global cohort to discuss energy policy.

Consider as an alternative analysis something far more thoughtful and thus less dead-certain, such as the work of Novi Labs, who put out incredibly detailed reports that analyze production trends, with a key difference from Forbes: Novi bases their projections on actual well data, well spacing, well productivity, well length, gas/oil ratios, rock quality, and many other parameters. For example, Novi recently published a paper entitled “Analyzing Midland Basin Well Performance and Future Outlook with Machine Learning” in which they conclude that, based on the above parameters and more, that the Midland Basin has about 25,000 future locations remaining, and breaks them out into prices required to develop them, and has the wisdom to conclude: “Due to the Permian Basin’s role as the marginal growth barrel, overestimating the remaining resources will have consequences spanning from price spikes to energy security and geopolitics.

Based on such incredibly detailed analyses, Novi is comfortable making, for example, Permian oil/gas production out to the year 2030.

Forbes is comfortable making oil/gas production forecasts to infinity, based on nothing more than a string of failed projections.

And people head off into the highest levels of government having read Forbes but not Novi. And we get Germany. And Canada. And etc.

This isn’t a question about whether we will “run out of oil”. The surest way to rile an audience it seems – just behind challenging EV superiority – is to question the ultimate productive capability of hydrocarbon resources. “Peak oil” is now a term of derision, in some ways rightly so because many smart people have, over time, warned that resources are about to run out.

It does seem erroneous to think that way, because as prices for something rise, more exploration will occur, and by definition we don’t know what those discoveries will encounter. Could be a little, could be a lot.

The point here is best explained by way of a real life example. A long time ago, late last century, natural gas was dirt cheap across western Canada. (Bizarrely, it’s even cheaper now, but not consistently so.) In Saskatchewan where (and when) I grew up, an alfalfa processing industry had developed that was a godsend to many small communities. Farmers would grow alfalfa and dedicate the output to a local (often community owned) alfalfa-processing facility that would convert green alfalfa into nutrient-rich pellets for which Japan (primarily) had a seemingly insatiable appetite.

The whole business existed because of the availability of cheap natural gas, which allowed for the rapid and economical dehydration of the green alfalfa; huge drying drums ran around the clock, all summer long, turning huge piles of fresh chopped-alfalfa salad into dried out pellets within 12 hours.

But then natural gas prices soared to unprecedented levels, over $10/GJ, and found a new average that was probably about twice the average in the 1980s and 1990s. This spike in natural gas prices wiped out the entire industry. Every little town lost a pillar of the community, investors lost investments, municipalities lost tax revenue, and hundreds or maybe even thousands of punks like me lost summer job opportunities.

THAT is what people like Larry Summers should be thinking about when they talk of, or heaven forbid ask questions about, the longevity of our hydrocarbon resources. Yes, there will be oil and natural gas reserves forever – but at what price? And what will the consequences of higher prices be?

In the spring of 2022, some large US trade associations issued warnings about the consequences of higher natural gas prices. “Last winter’s heating bills were unsustainable,” said the CEO of the Western Equipment Dealers Association. The winter to which he was referring, 2021-22, had average Henry Hub prices of $4.56/mmbtu – far higher than today, but a number that will probably be required over the long term to enable continued US reservoir development and feed LNG export demand.

That price level of which the CEO was frightened of, it is well worth noting, is a fraction of the global price of LNG. In other words, US industry will freak out if it has to pay even half of what the rest of the world does.

At a time when the US is desperate to ‘onshore’ a lot of manufacturing capacity, policy makers should be very careful about ‘what they know for sure’ about the future of US and Canadian energy productive capability.

Energy ignorance, at these levels of government, are getting deadly. I mean, we can all see Germany, right? It’s turning slapstick, what they’re doing to energy policy, and so many western leaders seem intent on following them. Force the closure of baseload power, force the adoption of intermittent power, watch AI buy up all the power from nuclear sources, claim to support new nuclear power which everyone knows won’t get here for a few decades, then trot off to an annual fall climate conference to tell the world what to do next.

As Mark Twain said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Terry Etam is a columnist with the BOE Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary.  He is the author of The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity.  You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022 here.

Continue Reading

Business

Poll shows strong majority of Canadians want carbon tax off all home heating

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Franco Terrazzano 

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released a Leger poll showing 60 per cent of Canadians want the federal government to remove the carbon tax from all home heating fuels.

“The poll results are crystal clear: Canadians don’t think the government should be taxing people for staying warm during the winter,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Canadians who are struggling the most are most likely to want the federal government to remove the carbon tax from everyone’s heating bills.”

The federal government removed the carbon tax from furnace oil for three years. But that carbon tax relief only helps three per cent of Canadian homes.

The Leger poll asked Canadians if they support or oppose the federal government removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels. The results of the poll show:

  • 60 per cent support tax relief for all home heating
  • 21 per cent oppose tax relief for all home heating
  • 19 per cent don’t know

Among those who are decided on the issue, 74 per cent of Canadians support the federal government removing the carbon tax from everyone’s home heating bills.

The Leger poll found high support across the country for removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels:

  • Atlantic Canada: 68 per cent support
  • Quebec: 49 per cent support
  • Ontario: 60 per cent support
  • Saskatchewan and Manitoba: 55 per cent support
  • Alberta: 70 per cent support
  • British Columbia: 66 per cent support

Among income levels, those earning less than $60,000 are most likely to support the federal government removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels.

“When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his furnace oil carve-out, he admitted the carbon tax makes life more expensive and he left 97 per cent of Canadian families out in the cold,” Terrazzano said. “All MPs should take this poll as a wake-up call and push Trudeau for relief before their constituents get hammered with carbon tax bills this winter.

Continue Reading

Trending

X