Trudeau gov’t has spent nearly $200 million on carbon tax paperwork since 2019: report

” the Trudeau government was forced to reveal that the tax cost Canadians $82,628,993 last year to collect and then to mail out rebate cheques. The Trudeau government assigned 474 employees to carbon tax paperwork ”

The carbon tax cost Canadians nearly $200 million in paperwork since Parliament introduced the fuel charge in 2019.

According to new records published December 7 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Liberal government under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent $199.2 million in taxpayer money on federal administration costs for the carbon tax.

“What were the annual costs to administer collection of the carbon tax and rebate program?” Conservative MP Chris Warkentin questioned in the House of Commons.

In response, the Trudeau government was forced to reveal that the tax cost Canadians $82,628,993 last year to collect and then to mail out rebate cheques. The Trudeau government assigned 474 employees to carbon tax paperwork.

While the Canada Revenue Agency had initially only hired a few employees to manage the carbon tax, the payroll expanded sevenfold after the Trudeau government decided to mail out rebates instead of allowing Canadians to file for the tax credit in their annual returns.

Accordingly, in 2022 there were only 33 employees assigned to the rebate program, but in 2023 the number had risen to 242. Similarly, the total cost of managing the tax rebates increased from $4.3 million in 2022 to $48.6 million in 2023.

Despite the high cost, the Liberal government has maintained that the carbon tax is necessary and the “most efficient” way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

“Carbon pricing is central to our climate plan because it is the most efficient and lowest cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas pollution,” Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault claimed last February. “The cost of doing nothing is staggering.”

Similarly, Trudeau defended the cost of collecting the tax last June, saying, “Everyone except apparently the Conservatives understands building in price signals on things we do not want like pollution is one of the most efficient ways of reducing emissions.”

“With respect to the price on pollution, if we asked 100 economists 99 will tell us it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions,” Wilkinson said.

The carbon tax, framed as a way to reduce carbon emissions, has cost Canadians hundreds more annually despite rebates.

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.

In October, Trudeau announced that he was pausing the collection of the carbon tax on home heating oil for three years, a provision that primarily benefits the Liberal-held Atlantic provinces. The current cost of the carbon tax on home heating fuel is 17 cents per liter. Most Canadians, however, heat their homes with clean-burning natural gas will not be exempted from the carbon tax.

Despite both Canadians and politicians supporting carbon tax exemptions for all, Trudeau and his government refuse to provide relief.

The government’s current environmental goals – in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” – include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades.

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet members are involved.

Related Topics:#CarbonTax #ClareMarieMerkowsky #LifeSiteNews

Up Next

Canadian agriculture’s $30 billion opportunity

Don't Miss

Canada’s health dept. admits there’s no evidence ArriveCan app ‘saved lives’ as previously claimed

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

Age of online privacy coming to an end as Australia adopts digital ID

Daily Caller / 10 hours ago

International Energy Agency should go on Trump’s Chopping Block

Opinion / 15 hours ago

Globalist elites around the world are trying to ‘protect democracy’ by eliminating right leaning competition

Business

Trump Tells Supreme Court He Wants To Resolve Tik-Tok Controversy

Published on December 28, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

President-elect Donald Trump filed a brief Friday with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block a law requiring that the social media platform TikTok either be sold or shut down by Jan. 19.

In April, President Joe Biden signed legislation allowing the ban of the Chinese-owned social media platform unless it is sold to a non-Chinese company within the year. Despite the company’s attempts to challenge the legislation as the shutdown date approaches, a panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously on Dec. 6 that the ban would be upheld, citing TikTok as a potential national security risk due to the Chinese government’s involvement with the app.

In his new filing, Trump argued against the ban, seeking to resolve the issue “through political means once he takes office.”

“President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal-making expertise, the electoral mandate and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government — concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged,” the brief said.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 18 agreed to hear TikTok’s challenge against the ban, with oral arguments set to begin Jan. 10. In its emergency application to the high court, the social media platform argued that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which is the basis for the ban, will not only “shutter” the U.S.’s “most popular speech platform the day before a presidential inauguration,” but will also “silence the speech of Applicants and the many Americans who use the platform to communicate about politics, commerce, arts, and other matters of public concern.”

Despite attempts to ban the app through executive orders, Trump publicly opposed legislation targeting TikTok, stating that the move to ban the social media platform could potentially benefit Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook.

“If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!” Trump posted to Truth Social in March.

In addition to his request to handle the issue once in office on Jan. 20, the brief noted Trump’s large following on TikTok, arguing that it allows him to “actively” communicate with supporters.

“President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific and influential users of social media in history,” the brief said. “Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech.”

TikTok additionally filed a brief Friday to the Supreme Court claiming the law being used to aid the ban was a violation of the First Amendment.

“The government has banned an extraordinary amount of speech; demands deference to unsubstantiated predictions a future risk will materialize; and gets facts wrong when it bothers to provide them,” the brief said.

“Congress’s unprecedented attempt to single out petitioners and bar them from operating one of the nation’s most significant speech venues is profoundly unconstitutional,” the brief continued.

Alberta

Alberta government must do more to avoid red ink

Published on December 27, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

As Albertans look toward a new year, it’s worth reviewing the state of provincial finances. When delivering news last month of a projected $4.6 billion budget surplus for fiscal year 2024/25, the Smith government simultaneously warned Albertans that a budget deficit could be looming. Confused? A $4.6 billion budget surplus sounds like good news—but not when its on the back of historically high (and incredibly volatile) resource revenue.

In just the last 10 years, resource revenue, which includes oil and gas royalties, has ranged from a low of $3.4 billion in 2015/16 (inflation-adjusted) to a high of $26.1 billion in 2022/23. Inflation-adjusted resource revenue is projected to be relatively high in historical terms this fiscal year at $19.8 billion.

Resource revenue volatility is not in and of itself a problem. The problem is that provincial governments tend to increase spending when resource revenue is high, but do not similarly reduce spending when resource revenue declines.

Overall, in Alberta, a $1 increase in inflation-adjusted per-person resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year, but a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. Over time, this pattern has contributed to historically high levels of government spending that exceed ongoing stable levels of government revenue.

And while the Smith government has shown some restraint, spending levels remain significantly higher than reliable ongoing levels of government revenue. Put simply, unpredictable resource revenue continues to help fund Alberta’s spending—and when resource revenues inevitably fall, Alberta is at high risk of plummeting into a deficit.

Indeed, Finance Minister Nate Horner continues to emphasize that we are “living in extremely volatile times” and warning that if oil prices fall below $70.00 per barrel a budget deficit is “very likely.” According to recent forecasts, the price of oil may hit $66.00 per barrel in 2025.

To avoid this fate, the Alberta government must do more to rein in spending. Fortunately, there’s plenty of options.

For example, the government spends billions in subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select industries and businesses every year. A significant body of research shows these subsidies fail to generate widespread economic benefits. Eliminating this corporate welfare, which would generate significant savings in the budget, is a good place to start.

If the Smith government fails to rein in spending, and Alberta incurs a budget deficit, it will only mean more government debt on the backs of Albertans. And with Albertans already paying approximately $650 each in provincial government debt interest each year, that’s something Albertans simply can’t afford.

With a new year set to begin, the Smith government continues to warn of a budget deficit. But rather than simply prepare Albertans for more debt accumulation—financed by their tax dollars—the government should do more to avoid red ink. That means cutting wasteful government spending.