SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 178

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 17, 2023 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 178 - Apr/17/23
Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)
  • Apr/17/23 7:19:13 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today, as always. Several weeks ago, back in December actually, I asked the Minister of Finance a question in the House of Commons about why European nations were withdrawing any taxes on their fuels in Europe to the tune of about 8,000 euros per family while this government was considering moving ahead with a 30% increase in carbon taxes. I did not get that good of a response, but in the interim, two weeks ago as a matter of fact, Canada's independent officer of Parliament, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, came out with a new report on the whole matter. I brought it with me here to make sure that any of the talking heads on the other side who do not like what it says can hear from it directly. In 2023-24, the federal fuel surcharge was set at $65 per tonne. We estimate the government will collect $11.8 billion in fuel charges from the seven provinces where the charge applies. This will be in addition, a tax on tax here because there is GST on top of that tax that amounts to $429 million in GST on top of that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report makes a pretty clear case that one of the problems with this is that it takes away an income tax base, particularly from the provinces. It talks about the economic impact, and it effectively goes through what this impact will be. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that in 2030-31, once the full $170 is actually implemented, the province it affects the most is Alberta, with an average of $2,773 per household. Now, this is something. The lowest province affected, Newfoundland and Labrador, will only be affected by $1,316 per household. I know that there will be much gnashing of teeth on the other side about this because those members have been claiming for a year now that this tax is actually a net positive for Canadians. Well, clearly it is not. However, no sooner had this report come out than my colleague on the other side of the House, the member of Parliament for Guelph, stood up and said that we need to make sure that the costs associated with the environment are considered in here. Well, let me say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did a report, which considered exactly that; surprisingly, it came out on November 8, 2022. The problem with these speculative reports going forward is that they are just that: speculative. They are based on a scenario, but one of the things that came out quite clearly in it is that compared to every other factor the world is going to face, including economic downturns, recessions and conflicts, climate change will be less of a factor in the analysis going forward. Nevertheless, if we take a look at what the numbers are when we analyze it, by 2100 we will have changed the economy, by the PBO's numbers, by less than three one-thousandths of a percentage point per year. That is a lot if we are spending tens of billions of dollars. Energy costs are by nature inflationary, and there is a reason the Bank of Canada wants energy cost increases excluded when it calculates inflation. It's the trimmed median, whatever it wants to talk about; it is about excluding the number one cause of inflation from the carbon tax because that is what they want consumers to believe at the end of the day. Even the Europeans do not buy into that, as they reduced it by 8,000 euros per family over this past year because of what they are facing in Europe. Now, I will say again that in my strong opinion, European countries are very poor financial and economic managers, but they did give this rebate back to all the citizens across Europe at a point in time. Therefore, I will repeat the question I asked at the time: Why is the Minister of Finance pushing Canada, punishing Canadians, with a 30% increase to an already inflation-causing tax?
693 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 178 - Apr/17/23
Mr. Greg McLean
  • Apr/17/23 7:27:40 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know how much I have to beseech the members on the other side to actually read the report they are referring to here, because they will find the numbers somewhat instructive. However, let us go “déjà vu, all over again” because we can look at the 1980s for massive government deficits at the time that led to high inflation, just like today. The U.S. fought this with what is called the strong dollar policy, which means higher interest rates on its bonds all the way through the economy. This penalized the developing world because most of the developing world has to pay its debt in U.S. dollars and with U.S. interest rates. This led to a decade of economic stagnation in the developing world, and some economies actually went negative over the decade of the 1980s to the 1990s. Therefore, this was predominantly thrust upon the world's poor to address inflation. However, one issue that addressed inflation was the fact that there was cheap energy, because oil became less than $10 a barrel at the time. Let me ask the question again. These are costs. Will the minister take a lesson and acknowledge that she is on the wrong path?
214 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border