[ad_1]
Dan Albas –
October 25, 2018 / 6:00 | story:
240104
Photo: Contribution
You may have seen or heard media reports about a Liberal government carbon tax rebate plan announced by the Liberal government.
What is this new carbon tax rebate plan?
The federal Liberal government has imposed the implementation of a national carbon tax across Canada, allowing provinces and territories to have some leeway in defining implementation parameters. of this program.
In British Columbia, for example, a carbon tax has been in effect since 2008. The provincial NDP government has announced that it will continue to increase it to meet the federal standard set by Prime Minister Justin. , Trudeau.
Other provinces, including Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick, have either openly refused a carbon tax or adopted other environmental policies that Mr. Trudeau has decided not to reach.
In these four provinces (and only these four provinces), residents will soon receive annual reductions in the federal government's carbon tax.
In Manitoba, the discount is $ 336, Ontario $ 300 is $ 248 and Saskatchewan is $ 598.
In British Columbia, the refund is zero.
A local citizen recently shared with me that this Liberal carbon tax policy essentially rewards the provinces that have rejected the Liberal carbon tax.
An interesting observation.
In my opinion, this Liberal rebate means that their national carbon tax is not really revenue neutral and that people will pay more in carbon tax costs.
According to the Liberals, the intention of these four provinces is to pay back a reduction in the carbon tax higher than what the Liberals think citizens of these provinces will pay in higher carbon taxes.
In other words, the Liberals suggest that if you live in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick, you will earn money and you will earn money after paying a carbon tax.
This same carbon tax credit, which will be implemented in tax returns, will also apply to the territories.
In August, the Trudeau Liberals also lowered the amount of carbon tax that some of Canada's largest polluters will have to pay because of "competitiveness" concerns, as many of Canada's major trading partners have no carbon tax.
It should also be noted that the recently negotiated USMCA trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico does not say anything about a North American carbon tax, which means that competitiveness issues remain.
My question this week:
- Do you believe that the government claims that you will have a financial head start after paying higher taxes?
I can be reached at [email protected] or at 1-800-665-8711.
Dan Albas –
October 18, 2018/4 pm | story:
239528
Photo: Contribution
The National Energy Board announced in June that crude oil exports by rail from Canada set a new record of 204,558 barrels per day.
Industry badysts predict that oil exports could reach 300,000 barrels by the end of the year.
The International Energy Agency predicted that by the end of 2019, Canada's oil exports by rail could reach 390,000 barrels a day, with levels reaching up to 590,000 barrels .
To add context, in 2012, rail oil shipments accounted for about 30,000 barrels of oil per day.
I mention these things because efforts to block the Trans Mountain Pipeline have been successful so far and have only served to increase shipments by rail, a less environmentally friendly option. .
At the same time, oil production in Alberta continues to increase.
Oil production is expected to reach 5.6 million barrels per day by 2035, an increase of more than 30% from current production levels. In the absence of increased pipeline capacity, it is clear that rail oil exports will only continue to increase.
In addition to the logistical challenges, there is also the current inability to access new markets willing to pay more for Canadian oil, unlike the current export to the United States.
Industry experts predict that about $ 1 billion a month would result in additional revenue loss through access to new markets.
As many know, the federal Liberal government spent $ 4.5 billion on the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and repeatedly stated that it would spend an additional $ 7 to $ 9 billion on the construction of the expanded project.
At present, the project remains in stalemate and the government has not set a specific deadline for completion, let alone construction.
And if there was another way?
Independent Senator Doug Black tabled in the Senate a private member's bill – Bill S-245, an act declaring the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project and related work in the service of Canada.
As many people know, BC The NDP government is making efforts to block the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Bill S-245 proposes that the authority of clbad 29 of section 91 and paragraph (c) of clbad 10 of section 92 of the Constitution Act of 1867 be used to declare this project necessary for the general advantage of Canada.
This bill was pbaded in the Senate and is in the House of Commons this week.
Given that the Prime Minister has said time and time again that the Trans Mountain project is in Canada's national interest, it will be interesting to see if the Liberals will support this Senate bill.
My question this week:
- Do you support Senate Bill S-245 and the intention to declare this project necessary for the general advantage of Canada?
I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.
Dan Albas –
October 11, 2018 / 6:00 | story:
238839
Photo: Contribution
With so many reports in the Canadian media about the recent appointment of a US Supreme Court justice, many Canadian stories have been lost in a hurry.
One story I suspect few have heard of is the progress made by the Trudeau Liberals, who praised the $ 35 billion infrastructure bank.
I first raised concerns about this bank when it was created by the Liberals in 2016.
I challenged the decision to create another expensive, federally funded organization that did not need it. In a subsequent report released in 2017 by a Member of Parliament, I expressed the fear that the Infrastructure Bank will build no infrastructure.
The Liberal government said the goal of the Infrastructure Bank was to attract international investors who would invest in the private sector and ultimately build infrastructure here in Canada.
This raises the question of where the infrastructure bank is at the end of 2018.
CBC recently announced that the Infrastructure Bank has been involved in a project since its inception.
The project involves a loan of $ 1.28 billion for the construction of a $ 6.3 billion transit project in Montreal.
What's interesting about this project is that it was never created by the Infrastructure Bank.
This light rail project in Montreal was already under way before the creation of the infrastructure bank.
Another interesting aspect of Montreal's light rail project is that it is built by a French construction company and the cars are built in India.
This one project aside, I feared earlier that the infrastructure bank would be a wasteful and unnecessary waste.
Requests for access to information have revealed enormous costs for the management of this new infrastructure bank.
Almost $ 11.4 million was spent on salaries, compensation and other administrative expenses, while almost $ 1.4 million was spent on capital expenditures.
The Liberal government has now spent almost $ 12.8 million, which could have been used for infrastructure construction instead of paying for expensive administration.
On a different note earlier this week, the Liberal government announced it would spend $ 1.44 million on a "practically zero" private grocery store in the riding of a Liberal minister from Ontario.
This project was not funded by the Bank of Infrastructure, but by Natural Resources Canada.
My question this week is this:
- do you believe that the infrastructure bank represents a good investment of $ 35 billion in taxes or is it an expensive, unnecessary and unnecessary abuse of resources?
I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.
Dan Albas –
October 4, 2018 / 11h00 | story:
238234
Photo: Contribution
Canadians learned this week that Canada has negotiated a draft NAFTA agreement with the United States and Mexico.
The new agreement, subject to ratification, is called the Agreement with the United States, Mexico and Canada, also known as the USMCA.
This agreement involved a significant number of Canadian concessions compared to the previous NAFTA agreement.
Some of these concessions are listed below.
Dairy: the United States had increased access to the Canadian dairy sector – about 3.6%. The Liberal government promised to compensate Canadian dairy farmers for their losses.
Automotive industry: Canada has agreed on a maximum number of vehicles that can be produced in Canada (2.6 million) and exported to the United States without tax. In addition, to avoid duty, 75% of the parts used in the manufacture of vehicles must come from partner countries of the USMCA.
Drug addicts: Canada has agreed to extend patent protection for organic pharmaceutical drugs to 10 years. This change is generally expected to increase the cost of some prescription drugs.
Copyright Laws: Canada has agreed to extend the terms of copyright from 50 to 70 years. A change that many experts have called "capitation of Canadian copyright policy".
From Minimis: it is a term that represents the quantity of goods that a person can import on the other side of the border without being subject to customs duties. The basic exemption for crossing the border in person will rise from $ 20 to $ 40 worth of US goods. For online shipments (e-commerce), the level is increased to CAN $ 150.
Commercial autonomy: Another alarming concession of concern to many in Ottawa is wording that could limit Canada's ability to negotiate a trade agreement with a "non-market" country, such as China. This is an emerging subject that requires more clarification.
BEFORE CHRIST. Some wine: on a subject closer to home another concession is that BC grocery stores currently on sale only in BC the wines will also have to sell wines from the United States, a problem that many thought could arise and have made known their concerns during the implementation of this provincial program.
What has not changed, is that an independent arbitration group will always be used in case of commercial dispute. Many see this new agreement as one of the few winning solutions for Canada, which will expire with a 16-year expiry date and a renewal option for another 16-year term.
Untreated things in the new USMCA:
- US tariffs on steel and aluminum produced in Canada remain in effect, as are punitive tariffs on
- Softwoods.
- In addition, the Buy American provisions of the United States also remain in effect.
Is it a good or bad deal for Canada?
That's the question for Canadians, and my question this week will be as follows:
- Do you think the many concessions made by the Liberal government have gone too far or is it just the price to pay for a new North American trade agreement?
More from Dan in Ottawa
Source link
