Connect with us

Business

Mark Carney is Planning to Hide His Revised, Sneaky Carbon Tax and This Time, No Rebates

Published

6 minute read

 

Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney seems to think giving you a discount code on a new furnace or some extra insulation is the best way to help you with affordability.

And he’s going to pay for the discounts by hitting businesses like fuel refineries and power plants with a hidden carbon tax. Of course, those businesses will just pass on the cost.

Bottom line: You still get hit with that hidden carbon tax when you buy gas or pay your bills.

But it gets worse.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at least attempted to give you some of the carbon tax money back through rebates. The Parliamentary Budget Officer consistently made it clear the rebates don’t cover all of the costs. But at least you could spend the money on the things you need most.

But under Carney’s “affordability” plan, you don’t get cash to pay down your credit card or buy groceries. You can only use the credits to buy things like e-bikes and heat pumps.

Here’s how Carney explained it.

“We will have the big polluters pay for climate incentives by developing and integrating a new consumer carbon credit market into the industrial pricing system,” Carney told a Halifax crowd. “While we still provide price certainty for households when they make climate smart choices.”

Translation: Carney would still make Canadians pay, but he’ll only help them with affordability if they’re making “smart” choices.

Sound familiar? This is a lot like the scheme former opposition leader Erin O’Toole ran on. And it ended his political career.

Carney’s carbon tax plan is terrible for two reasons.

First: it’s sneaky. Carney wants to hide the cost of the carbon tax. A powerplant running on natural gas is not going to eat the cost of Carney’s carbon tax; it will pass that expense down to ordinary people who paying the bills.

Second: as anemic as the Trudeau government rebates are, at least Canadians could use the money for the things they need most. It’s cash they can put it towards the next heating bill, or buy a pair of winter boots, or pay for birthday party decorations.

That kind of messy freedom makes some central planning politicians twitchy.

Here’s the thing: half of Canadians are broke and a discount on a new Tesla probably won’t solve their problems.

About 50 per cent are within $200 each month of not being able to make the minimum payments on their bills.

With the cost of groceries up $800 this year for a family of four, people are watching flyers for peanut butter. Food banks have record demand.

Yet, Carney wants Canadians to keep paying the carbon tax while blindfolded and then send thank-you cards when they get a few bucks off on a solar panel they can’t afford.

Clearly the architects of Carney’s plan haven’t spent many sleepless nights worrying about paying rent.

One of Carney’s recent gigs was governor of the Bank of England where he was paid $862,000 per year plus a $449,000 housing allowance.

With ermine earmuffs that thick, it’s hard to hear people’s worries.

About a thousand Canadians recently posted home heating bills online.

Kelly’s family in Northern Ontario paid $134 in the carbon tax for December’s home heating. Lilly’s household bill near Winnipeg was $140 in the carbon tax.

The average Alberta household will pay about $440 extra in the carbon tax on home heating this year.

After the carbon tax is hiked April 1, it will add an extra 21 cents to a litre of gasoline and 25 cents per litre of diesel. Filling a minivan will cost about $15 extra, filling a pickup truck will cost about $25 extra, and a trucker filling a big rig will have to pay about $250 extra in the carbon tax.

Trudeau’s carbon tax data is posted online.

Carney’s carbon tax would be hidden.

Carney isn’t saying the carbon tax is an unfair punishment for Canadians who are trying to drive to work and heat their homes.

He says the problem is “perception.”

“It has become very divisive for Canadians,” Carney told his Halifax crowd about the carbon tax. “It’s the perceptions of the negative impacts of the carbon tax on households, without fully recognizing the positive impacts of the rebate.”

Carney isn’t trying to fix the problem. He’s trying to hide it. And he wants Canadians to be happy with discount codes on “smart” purchases instead of cash.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

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

Business

A Look at Canada’s Import Tariffs

Published on

  By David Clinton

Speaking of foreign tariffs, Canada’s hands are not exactly clean

It’s one thing to oppose the various iterations of recently threatened U.S. tariffs: many of those carry the potential to inflict serious harm on Canada and Canadians and we’re right to be nervous. However, whether or not Canada’s many external-facing policies use the term tariff in their titles, we have more than a few protectionist trade barriers of our own. I thought it would be useful to list some of Canada’s more obvious protectionist policies.

Unfortunately, one thing these examples lack is context. It’s no secret that international trade is complicated. Some of the trade barriers I’m going to describe are policy responses to legitimate safety issues. And, even among those restrictions that were designed to protect local industries, I couldn’t usefully estimate whether there are enough of them to define our total trade ecosystem.Nevertheless, here’s what I did find.The Customs Tariff Act governs Canada’s import tariffs. All goods entering Canada from countries on the Most-Favored-Nation list that aren’t eligible for lower rates through trade agreements are subject to tariff charges as high as 17 percent. Here are some practical cases of imports from the U.S. that aren’t covered by the CUSMA trade agreement:

  • U.S. t-shirts using imported fabric could face an 18 percent tariff, adding $18,000 to a $100,000 shipment.
  • A $30,000 U.S.-assembled car with Asian parts incurs $1,830 in duties.
  • $50,000 of U.S. strawberries could face $4,250 in seasonal duties if applied.
  • $200,000 of steel wire from the U.S. could face $108,000 in extra anti-dumping duties.

Canada’s supply management system for dairy, poultry, and eggs is a notorious example of a policy that looks, walks, and quacks just like a duck an import tariff. Supply management is governed by a combination of federal and provincial laws, including the Export and Import Permits Act and the Farm Products Agencies Act. Regulations can hit over-quota imported cheese with rates as high as 245.5 percent and chicken can be taxed at 238 percent. And that’s assuming you somehow manage to score an import permit from Global Affairs Canada.The Canadian Food Inspection Agency enforces strict sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that often require layers of inspections or certification requirements that can significantly raise compliance costs. The differences between some of those requirements and an economic tariff are not always obvious.The Canada Border Services Agency collects an excise tax on imported liquor. For example, a U.S. exporter looking to ship 100 litres of 40 percent ABV whiskey to Canada will face a duty of $467.84 (100 × 0.4 × $11.696). That duty must be paid by the importer.In addition, various provincial liquor control boards apply fees and markup costs on imported alcohol, which effectively create price barriers for foreign products (when they’re even allowed on store shelves).Book Importation Regulations limit parallel imports of foreign editions in order to protect Canadian publishers. I assume this is why so many major international publishing companies maintain Canadian offices and, on paper at least (so to speak), publish special Canadian editions.The various Canadian Content (CanCon) rules governing broadcast media will also undermine the principle of free trade, even if those rules won’t necessarily increase import costs.Here are some examples of regulatory compliance rules that aren’t always just about safety:

  • Electrical product safety certification rules sometimes requires foreign electronics manufacturers to repeat testing despite already having UL certification, adding 3-6 months to market entry.
  • US medical device companies can face duplication of regulatory submissions and maintenance of separate quality systems due to Health Canada requirements.
  • Chemical manufacturers must submit detailed testing data specific to Canadian requirements in order to register their products.
  • Small US food producers must implement separate packaging lines for Canadian-bound products to satisfy nutrition labeling requirements.

This isn’t to say there’s necessarily anything morally wrong with any of those rules. And, as I noted, I’m not sure whether Canada’s overall trade profile is more restrictive than our international peers. But, when faced with foreign tariffs, it can’t be said that Canada’s hands are perfectly clean.

Subscribe to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Continue Reading

Business

Vice President Vance expects framework of TikTok deal by April 5

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Vice President JD Vance expects a framework agreement to resolve TikTok’s ownership by April 5, as the Biden-era law requiring its Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a ban looms. President Donald Trump had previously delayed enforcement of the law, allowing more time for negotiations. The White House is in discussions with multiple potential buyers to establish an American-owned version of the social media platform.

Key Details:

  • Vice President Vance stated that a high-level agreement will likely be reached that meets national security concerns while creating a U.S.-based TikTok enterprise.

  • President Trump signed an executive order in January, delaying the enforcement of a law requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban.

  • The White House is engaged with four interested groups in potential acquisition talks.

Diving Deeper:

The fate of TikTok in the U.S. has been a subject of intense debate due to concerns over data security and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party through ByteDance. The law, originally passed under the Biden administration, sought to force the sale of the app due to fears that American user data could be accessed by the Chinese government. However, after taking office, President Trump extended the enforcement deadline by 75 days, giving room for negotiations.

Vice President Vance, speaking to NBC News aboard Air Force Two, expressed confidence that an agreement will be reached by April 5, though some details may still need to be finalized afterward. He and national security adviser Michael Waltz have been leading efforts to facilitate a sale that would address national security concerns while preserving TikTok’s massive American user base.

President Trump revealed last weekend that his administration is in talks with four different groups interested in acquiring the app. While the specifics of these negotiations remain undisclosed, the administration has made it clear that TikTok must operate as a distinct American entity to remain in the U.S. market.

As the deadline approaches, ByteDance has not publicly commented on the ongoing discussions. However, with bipartisan concerns over the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on U.S. technology platforms, the expectation is that any deal will include significant safeguards to prevent foreign interference in the app’s operations.

The coming weeks will determine whether a sale materializes or if further action will be needed to enforce the law. Either way, the Trump administration has signaled its commitment to ensuring that TikTok is no longer under the control of a hostile foreign adversary.

Continue Reading

Trending

X