April 24th, 2024

Taxpayers Federation opposes fuel tax hike


By Al Beeber - Lethbridge Herald on March 20, 2024.

LETHBRIDGE HERALDabeeber@lethbridgeherald.com

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is urging the provincial government to scrap its planned April 1 fuel tax hike.

That increase – on April Fool’s Day – is scheduled for the same day the federal government will be increasing the carbon tax.

Lethbridge-based CTF director Kris Sims says in a release that Alberta residents don’t need that extra financial hit.

“The Trudeau government is already slapping us with a carbon tax hike and the last thing Albertans need is to be punched by their own provincial government,” said Sims.

“You can’t tear a strip off the prime minister for jacking up his carbon tax and turn around and hike your own fuel tax by even more on the same day, what gives?”

The provincial fuel tax currently sits at nine cents per litre.

The province plans to increase the tax on gas and diesel up to 13 cents a litre on April 1.

The CTF is questioning the need for the UCP to hike the fuel tax.

By its figures, the CTF says “at full cost, the provincial fuel tax adds on about $10 per fill up for a minivan, about $15 for a pickup truck and about $130 extra for a big rig truck using diesel.”

It notes that when the carbon tax increases to $80 per tonne, that will add 17 centrs to the cost per litre of gasoline, 21 cents per litre to the price of diesel fuel and 15 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.

“Albertans are counting on their provincial government to shield them against Trudeau’s carbon tax and instead they are getting a provincial tax hike at the pumps, too,” said Sims. “It’s a mystery why the NDP government in Manitoba has suspended its provincial fuel tax, saving drivers 14 cents per litre, but Albertans are seeing their fuel taxes going back up.”

Share this story:

13
-12
Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
biff

hate to state the very obvious, but more expensive fuel costs will once again ramp up the cost of everything, with the poorest suffering the most. so, here is to more fast tracked inflation – well done! one of the best ways to control the masses is to control their wealth. adds to insecurity, and to greater dependence on authority, which further empowers authority. and, of course, the wealth from which the masses are further separated also pads the globs of the stuff already owned by the utmost wealthy.

ReallyReally

Folks should just switch to riding bicycles. Just not in Lethbridge ? (wink, wink)

biff

haha!!

Dennis Bremner

Not sure what world Trudeau lives in, but he is not living in the same world as the rest of us.
The more you tax diesel the higher everything is, you do not have to be an economist to figure out if a Semi full of Lettuce leaves Mexico to come here, Diesel is the biggest expense they have. The more it costs the more the premium on the cost of the commodity.
That goes for any widget that is produced at one end of this country and is delivered to the other. Trains use Diesel, everything that is used to ship commodities uses diesel!
So in one breath Bank of Canada says, they must hold inflation below 3% and the Liberals are creating more inflation in commodities while also stating they have to get inflation under control?
The one thing you will never hear a Liberal utter is the % of GHGs that Canada Contributes to over all GHG. The reason of course is it ruins Trudeaus claim to fame. Liberals want you to believe the Climate in Canada is changing because of our contribution to Climate Change. Our contribution is 1.4% of total GHGs. That means that 98.6% of GHGs are produced by other countries.
I have no issue fighting the war against Climate Change but while Trudeau is pretended to save the planet and bankrupt many a company and family, the total GHGs contributed to climate change during his tenure have exceeded the 1.4% we contribute. Which means if we were to STOP today and not contribute anything to the GHGs of the planet and we were at ZERO, we would be back to 2021s emmissions for the planet.
In other words had we ceased producing GHG 1 Jan 2021 the total GHGs contributed by the rest of the world as of 2024 exceeded our 1.4% and total GHGs would be unchanged. So whom is killing the planet, not Canada, we contribute our bit, for sure and no matter what fossil fuel producing country you name, they all have problems.
So the Liberals intend on crippling our economy, to save an irrelevant number to overall GHGs to create a Legacy. It is all about legacy and nothing to do with the Climate. Gibbeault and others like him ie Mckenna like to speak as if WE (Canada) do not get things under control, we ( CANADA) will kill the planet!, That is a Climate Fraud perpetuated by the “woke”!. Thats why they cannot sell it in Alberta, because Diesel and Gas will be used for the next 30 years. Plastics, etc etc. So its easy for those that do not produce the fossil fuels to point fingers at those that do. Yet they still wear there synthetic clothing, drive to work in their non-electric cars and consume like the rest of us.
Mckenna in an interview thinks shipping NG to other countries so they can get off coal is a great idea, yet if used here, its looked down upon.
In the end, you substitute a Fossil Fuel Conglomerate that dictates policy to Governments everywhere with an Electrical Company that will do exactly the same thing!
Don’t take my word for it We contribute 1.407% or less now
Scroll down to Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions

Last edited 1 month ago by Dennis Bremner
ReallyReally

Some great points Dennis. However the rationale behind carbon taxes globally is to a) use those taxes to compensate for/fund measures that will combat climate change concerns, b) provide an effective tax on corporations that are often let off the hook in traditional taxation venues, c) encourage corporations/industries to develop and more quickly install pollution reducing technology, and d) encourage citizens period to reduce their consumption of polluting sources whenever and wherever possible. These ideas were explained to me with reading about the concept and by a relative in Holland who was an international oil patch exec over there. Holland adopted its version of carbon taxation well before Trudeau’s government enacted Canada’s. That relative said he gladly paid his share based on the fact he recognized his heavier personal car and lifestyle all contributed to a “bigger footprint”. Versions of the carbon tax exist in many EU countries and according to him they had been effective, both with regard to equitable taxation and public education and efforts to reduce consumption. Those conversations were more than a decade past (he has passed), so I have not done much to follow up on current effectiveness, but I do remember reading studies that confirmed that. I do know from many other relatives still living in the Netherlands that the global economic crisis is causing citizens there to be facing similar financial strains that North Americans are; they too are growing upset as a society. Perhaps more public wrath needs to be directed at the many, many corporations posting remarkable profits in the past couple of years while inflation and costs of everything imaginable increased markedly?
As far as the arguments re Canada’s contribution… global air pollution knows no boundaries. China is busting ass in many ways to reduce its carbon footprint despite the country’s massive pollution issues, including newly on-line coal fuelled energy plants. But heh, we consume tonnes of Chinese sourced products for our first world lifestyle, so hush…
And yes,as Sims notes, it is a “mystery” that the Manitoba NDP are suspending their provincial fuel tax, while oil patch rich Alberta is reinstating plus increasing these taxes here … ??? Rather hypocritical given Smith’s and UCP non-stop anti-federal rants. Yet another effort to increase chaos to align with their ideological outrage and agenda ? Seems a tad irrational ??? Perhaps given Danielle Smith went on air to announce that she was suspending spending and becoming more fiscally tight fisted, but then she and her UCP ministers continued to make one spending announcement after another — perhaps it is because she has recognized that she has dug herself a grave of debts FAR LARGER than the NDP ever came close to achieving, is praying the fuel tax will keep her above drowning should the rains increase and her grave floods? (I am NEVER astounded that all the baying Con dogs upset about NDP spending are now mute. — and by the way, I was raised a Conservative and my one granddaddy was the president of his provincial Con party, so labelling me with a NDP loving tag makes an ASSUME. UCP are NOT conservatives.)

biff

you have hit on so many key issues. that said, if we keep agreeing, “they” will know you are one of my numerous aliases in this forum 🙂

Dennis Bremner

Since 1990 China has increased GHGs by 385% and Canada 130%
It is not just coincidence that the Oilsands came on line to satisfy demand. The Oilsands contribute .7% of the 1.4% of Canada’s emmissions. So to make any sizeable contribution means the complete shutdown of the Oilsands.
Doing that just shifts the emmission load to Saudi or Russia. The offset of a losed oilsand is an increase somewhere else with far less emision rules.
One could easily argue the point that “it is the demand” not “the production”, that is the issue! It is also not coincidental that the greater polluters are in Northern Environments where fossil fuels are burnt to keep warm. It is also not coincidental that the land mass occupied by the largest polluters is far greater than “any other countries land mass”.
It is difficult to compare US progress because half of the country is not in a deep freeze and the population is greater South than North.
So until assessment is done based on size,geographical position on the planet. and; what is causing the GHG, production or usage, its an arbritrary and immeasuable number that is being faked by the Climate Groups. In one country trees are used as an offsetter, We don’t. Why, because they insist it is because they are burning because of Climate Change and therefore contributing to GHGs. “So our trees burn but others are fire proof?
If the effect of Climate Change is our trees burning, then why are we not getting some sort of special consideration much like “Islands” sinking because of rising water levels because of “Climate Change”.?
I buy the principals and support the fight but the math stinks to high heaven, and, the Liberals are leaders of Stink! They assume we are gullible enough to believe that if we get a grip on our GHGs that suddenly BC/AB will no longer burn.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dennis Bremner
ReallyReally

In these arguments your comprehension of ecological aspects of climate issues is sadly lacking Dennis… ignored. With those factors in mind your “arguments” here are mis/mythinformation, and detract from an intelligent conversation regarding the topic. Your line of rhetoric regarding the controlling of GHG, gullibility and “suddenly BC/AB will no longer burn” is Flat Earther calibre — absolute invented poppycock and hypocrisy from a man who claims that the math is the holy grail he adheres to with his opinions. Logic and nonrational content combined create a cloudy cool-aid Dennis. Your statement is meant to be consumed by the gullible folks you preach to.
Importantly from the viewpoint of the many who do care about the consequences of the exceedingly rapid climate change, the effect on lowland coasts and islands is real, and the Liberal government’s efforts to curb pollution are an effort of our current government to do due diligence on Canada’s part to lower our levels of GHG. Our population consumes and emits very high levels on a per capita basis. We are First World Level Consumers. Greedy little boogers. The rate at which the planet’s species are becoming extinct is unprecedented with regard to previous mass extinctions. Our level of emissions is just one factor that we can control to become better stewards of our planet’s health and “better neighbours” to the other species in our planet’s community. I am rather proud of the fact that our government is showing the character it is with that idea in mind. (And I am not even a Liberal; score regularly as slightly right.) This government carbon tax policy actually redistributes funds collected to families based on incomes. The lower income people do get returns likely greater than their expenses-come-footprint (sans Saskatchewan). Meanwhile the giant corporations declare greater and greater profits during these dire budgeting times. Odd that ? The Liberal government is NOT the creator of our financial problems. The global financial problems are the results of many factors far more complex than the carbon taxes used in many nations; you seem incapable of understanding this level of complexity, or perhaps wilfully ignorant of same. Wake up Dennis ?

Dennis Bremner

Actually you have missed my point. I am not trying to mislead nor provide misinformation. I have listened to both Gibbeault and Mckenna and they continually mask the fact that if we get to zero, it will not make any difference in climate change. I do feel it will cripple our economy,
If you were to ask some Canadians that very same question they would reply yes! Why, because we are missing the “truthful” context, and always have. The way some of the smaller emmitters are jumping in GHGs will swallow our 1.4% faster then the larger emitters are reducing.
Why is context needed? Pausing the April 1 hike will not cause the planet to burn anymore or less than it already is, period! Pausing will still keep the Carbon Tax and will do the least damage to the planet. Not Pausing allows others to Axe the Tax. Thats the “math” you are missing.
So if anyone is misleading or misunderstanding this situation its probably you. I am not suggesting an Axe or anything close to it. I am suggesting that if its not paused, its Axed! I am pretty sure thats not what you want, so if you don’t want Axe, then PAUSE!
To put this in a more understandable context. If Canada’s role is to fry all our trees as a result of the other 98.6% then going to zero, and now everyone else composes 100% of GHGs does not save us, does it! So the context we miss is how fast are the major emmitters reducing demand for fossil fuels and is it fast enough? I say it is not and we will be in the same position in 5 years, 10 years if THEY do not reduce demand by a significant amount in a shorter time period. A reduction in demand puts producers in a position to reduce production because there is no market. So a Pause to save the Carbon Tax is mathematically smarter than Axing, capiche?
Producing electric cars is another discussion and their impacts on GHGs. However, producing an electric car like the Nissan Leaf and having the batteries prematurely die and then having to sue Nissan does not make for a consumer transition that is not wrapped in fear. Perhaps you are rich enough to absorb the growing pains of Batteries but most Canadians whether 1st World or not cannot absorb a $50,000 loss during a recession. Having cars, phones, scooters catch fire and burn down houses or apartments is not the recco people need to change, I can asure you. We are sticking people with Lemons and trying to sell it as Lemonade.
If Governments were smart, they would take some of their wasted money and insure the first transitioners so that this would be seamless, but they are not. To tell consumers that they are making money on the Carbon Tax when everything has risen to a point where they no longer believe it tells you things have to change. Why? Consumers actually believe inflation is being caused by the Carbon Tax, because very few of them have gone through a recession before. 5% interest rates are “catestrophic indicators” when in fact its normal. What is abnormal is what we went through for interest rates in the last 20 years. Liberals cannot seem to understand their ability to explain these things is so lacking that the stink they produce just appears to be more BS.
I think my understanding of the situation is fine, even if you do not.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dennis Bremner
ReallyReally

a) I will need to reread these entries to see where there is any misunderstanding, although I stand by my comment that you seem to have a poor grasp of ecological aspects of the environmental/dramatic climate change concerns. b) COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS abound these days. Primarily people only engage in communication with the goal of impatiently wanting to jump in and shout their tribal chants. Few LISTEN with a goal for communication and understanding.c) I do NOT believe that financial concerns are the true basis for the loudest whiners with regard to the Carbon Tax. If it were bankrupting businesses and individuals would they be driving their 8 inch lifted penis extensions and their 40-50 foot semi tractor flag waving rigs around repeatedly to demonstrate how they cannot afford the tax? Rolling coal hardly is a cheap weekend hobby. This tribe of coal rolling whiners is so blatantly hypocritical it is pathetic not even funny. Inflation is merely ideological rhetoric for these individuals. d) I respect that EVs can be a worthwhile form of transportation. We have purchased e-bikes primarily due to my personal health issues; I don’t always have the stamina to complete longer rides. I have no interest in buying an EV car or truck. I did the math long ago. Measuring pollution concerns at the tail-pipe in that EV issue is faulty reckoning of the environmental costs.

ReallyReally

I should clarify here that we own older vehicles that we regularly maintain to ensure they last as long as possible…reducing their initial production costs relative to environmental impacts, and yet greater costs of replacing them with newly manufactured vehicles. We are low mileage drivers on an annual basis. My favourite vehicle we own and operate is 37 years old; try getting even ten years use out of the new EVs from what is becoming apparent.

ReallyReally

Just going to pop this tidbit in here to clarify my points: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-pricing-climate-report-1.7151139
Again: Pollution ignores political boundaries, so my unchangeable recognition is that “every little bit helps” and that sapiens needs to RESPECT the rights and conservation of all other inhabitants of this planet with both short term and long-term considerations.

Kal Itea

“The CTF is questioning the need for the UCP to hike the fuel tax.” The UCP.

SophieR

Oh those tax, borrow and spend libertarians. This tax along with the captured provincial retirement funds will provide near limitless opportunities to squander on pet projects and bogus studies by party stalwarts. I’m sure bucky can share some good reasons for the UCP moneygrab …

biff

it hurts to read your entry because it is so true.

Dennis Bremner

whom are we talking about because the NDP do exactly the same thing, each have their own pet projects both result in exactly the same destination!

biff

i give you a plus, given that i am on record in this forum so very many times in stating that our govts, our political system, our most about lining pockets of the very wealthiest people and entities. however, to have had a govt steal away public sector pensions and funnel them in a heavy handed manner to their sleazy aimco pals – without consent or approval the people affected -that is all the more a direct impact on the likes of myself, and the many others that have paid into their pension plans.



17
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x