DEVASTATING: Trudeau Government Reveals Carbon Tax Plan


A massive tax grab is on the way

The Trudeau government has revealed the details of their carbon tax plan. In short, it will be devastating for Canadian consumers, and it is clearly a massive tax grab.

Despite Environment Minister Catherine McKenna saying, “This is not a tax; this is a levy and the revenue is going back into the province,” the so-called “revenue-neutral” tax is premised on promises the federal government will rebate the money to provinces.

As we know, taking money from taxpayers and giving it to another level of government is not revenue neutral. It is a transfer of wealth from Canadian consumers to politicians and bureaucrats.

While the Trudeau government is claiming they will “consider” sending rebates to homes and businesses, that isn’t an actual part of their plan. And we know how much a Trudeau government promise is worth.

Carbon tax will increase by 500% in just 5 years

The carbon tax will increase more rapidly than almost any tax we have ever seen. It starts at $10 per tonne, but will rise all the way to $50 per tonne in just 5 years.

By 2022, it is expected that gas will cost 11.6 cents more per litre.

Electricity from natural gas or coal will also be hit heavily by the tax.

Tax will hit consumers directly

Canadian consumers are going to feel the direct impact of the tax.

Fuel distributors will be adding the carbon tax to their prices, which means prices will go up throughout the supply chain. Expect food and clothing prices to go up, along with a spike in the cost of almost all other consumer goods. 

Because of the carbon tax, the cost of living will rise, further squeezing Canadians who have experienced stagnant wages and rising debt levels.

Albertans hate the carbon tax the Trudeau government keeps citing

In an ominous note, the government keeps citing the Alberta NDP carbon tax plan, despite Alberta having the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the country, and despite the vast majority of Albertans opposing the tax.

In a 2017 ThinkHQ/Metro News poll, 64% of Albertans disapproved of the provincial carbon tax, while just 32% were in favour. 50% were strongly opposed.

That’s what Trudeau wants to copy nationwide.

Terrible.

And in case Trudeau thinks bringing up a “rebate” will change things, the poll shows 59% of those who got a refund still oppose the carbon tax.

Devastating consequences for consumers and our economy

To get a sense of what we can expect from Trudeau’s national carbon tax, consider what Paige MacPherson – Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation – wrote in the Financial Post when the Alberta carbon tax was first introduced:

“This carbon tax is anything but revenue neutral. Alberta’s new broad-based carbon tax is a tax on everything that moves. It will raise the price of gas and home heating, costing Alberta families an estimated $300 to $600 per year. That will rise to over $900 per year for the average family by 2030. Some can expect rebates, but we have little idea what that will look like.”

Added MacPherson, “The price of clothing, food and everything transported will also increase. Shutting down coal-fired electricity plants and subsidizing green energy companies (corporate welfare by a friendlier name) will raise electricity prices. The province will lose investment, and rural communities will be hit hard.”

MacPherson is totally correct. The carbon tax is going to hurt all Canadians, expand corporate welfare, and damage our economy. It’s a devastating blow to our economy and to Canadians working hard to improve their financial circumstances.

Infringing on the provinces

Trudeau isn’t giving provinces an option to avoid imposing this terrible tax hike on consumers. If a province doesn’t impose a tax or cap-and-trade plan of their own, the federal government will force the tax on people anyway.

It’s pure arrogance and contempt for the authority of provinces, and will dramatically increase regional tension.

A terrible plan

Trudeau’s carbon tax plan is terrible. It won’t do anything for the environment, because it’s simply a tax grab. That fact is laid bare by the Trudeau government itself. In their plan, they say that a “small portion” of emissions from big industrial plants will be taxed – if those plants use a lot of oil and face tough world-wide competition. This means the government is both acknowledging that their carbon tax will damage our industries and devastate our competitiveness, while also showing they aren’t worried about making “exceptions” – proving it’s not really about the economy.

It’s total hypocrisy and incoherence from a government that is determined to gain more wealth and power at the expense of Canadians, and will use any lie – including the “environment,” in order to impose their dangerous and destructive plans.

Spencer Fernando

​***

The elites want to hide their many failures behind political correctness, deception, and manipulation. We need to push back and spread the truth. That’s why I write.

Building this platform takes a lot of work, but it’s worth it, and there are two ways you can help:

1 – You can contribute to my Patreon

2 – You can share this article


3 comments Add yours
  1. Maybe she should look up the definition of “levy”. I did, it means to impose a tax, fee, or a fine. I’d suggest her carbon tax is all three..

  2. Here is what I always ask these AGW fools (and I have yet to get even ONE response):

    Before we commit to spending billions upon billions of dollars to solve this problem, how about we define it scientifically? You know, in a way that can be measured.

    Real scientists check out the value of their theories and hypotheses by using data. So let’s try that here.

    What, exactly, is being *measured*? And how accurate are those measurements, both now and over time? And how do you know what the contribution of human activity is to whatever you are measuring?

    I’ll make it even easier for you. Since AGW believers frequently bring up surface temperature, let’s look at it. After all, it’s about the simplest thing involved, isn’t it?

    So show me a map of the earth’s surface temperature, and a companion map of the margin of error.

    Then do the same thing in (say) 1900.

    If you prefer another atmospheric parameter than surface temperature, suggest it and provide reasons for your choice, and then answer the same questions.

    Finally, tell me what part of the differences is due to human activity, how you know, and how accurately you know it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *