OTTAWA,
ON: On its 14th annual Gas Tax Honesty Day, the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation (CTF) released new data on gas taxes with several major
findings.
Highlights include:
That the average two-car family will pay approximately $1,225 in gas taxes every year.
Federal
and provincial tax-on-tax cost Canadians an average 2.5 cents/litre, or
$82 a year for a two-car family, or $1.7 billion nationally.
Taxes make up nearly 29 per cent of the pump price for gasoline.
There is a strong positive correlation between lower pump prices in provinces with lower gas taxes.
“Gas
taxes continue to eat up a disproportionate amount of Canadian
household income,” said CTF federal director Gregory Thomas. “But
Canadians are not only paying high gas taxes, they are paying unfair
tax-on-tax.”
In 2004, the Conservative Party wrote in a national
news release: “The fastest and easiest way to give Canadians relief at
the pump is for the federal government to stop charging GST on top of
gasoline excise taxes. It’s time to axe the tax on the tax.”
“We
agree with the Conservative policy commitment of ending the tax-on-tax.
The question is: do they still agree with themselves” questioned Thomas.
Every
year before the May long-weekend, the CTF holds its Gas Tax Honesty Day
as a reminder to motorists that nearly 29 per cent of the price at the
pump is taxes, many of them hidden. In addition, the CTF today released
new data detailing gas tax breakdowns in every province.
The report showed a clear and strong correlation between provinces with lower gas taxes and lower pump prices.
“The
evidence is clear: lower gas taxes mean lower pump prices,” said
Thomas. “If Canadians want relief at the pump, the way to deliver it is
to cut gas taxes, starting with the GST/HST tax-on-tax.”
Gas and
carbon tax hikes in Manitoba and British Columbia will force significant
increases in gas prices in those provinces, at $68 and $216
respectively for a two-car family.
The CTF held Gas Tax Honesty Day events in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Halifax.
The CTF data with details and provincial breakdowns can be found HERE.
A graphic breaking down a litre of gasoline can be found HERE.
A graphic contrasting current tax-on-tax with the CTF's proposal can be found HERE.
I have always thought it unfortunate and unwise that the Opposition
feels so compelled to oppose everything proposed by the government, both
federally and provincially. Of course, we all know that “holding their
feet to the fire” (deemed a solemn responsibility) has more attraction
if it also embarrasses the ruling party and gives those in opposition a
leg up in the next election. In that sense, it can be expected as par
for the course that agreement will be the least likely path chosen by
the opposition when new legislation is put forward or issues are raised.
Case in point, the recent deep concern for security expressed by the
Opposition over the heavy reliance on and implicit trust in various
companies operating out of the Peoples’ Republic of China which
apparently have a finger—or maybe two hands—in sensitive Canadian
telecommunications businesses. Although I am most frequently in
opposition to the federal Opposition, in this case, I think they may be
onto something. It only surprises me that they have suddenly taken up
the cause of national security when their leanings have always been
toward a “global village” with universal rules and shared access to all
the planet has to offer…especially if it involves a new government
program. But I digress. This is a topic worthy of discussion and I’m
glad they brought it up. In short, I agree with them. There, I said it.
I also wanted to specifically mention two policy positions about
which I agree: one item from the Finance Minister and one from the
Official Opposition. I often disagree with either or both and so it is
important that I acknowledge their acumen when they get something right.
In the case of the Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: in the course of
defending the government’s horrible, omnivorous omnibus bill—the budget
implementation bill—Mr. Flaherty received a lot of flak for his
assertion that those currently unemployed should not be so fussy when
looking for work. In other words, in order to legitimately claim EI
benefits, job-seekers would have to show that they really were unable to
find paying work and would no longer be able to claim that a
lower-paying job was not suitable for them or was outside their skill
and interest. I think the intent of his statement was to encourage
people on EI to get busy, to be willing to take opportunities that come
their way and to do all within their power to be a net contributor to
the system. I agree with that sentiment. I have been “between jobs” more
than once. I have taken work outside my career goals. I have moved to a
new location to get work. I have benefited from a varied work
experience. I also have seen other workers, even friends of mine, sit
home and wait for their EI to run out, rather than hit the streets
looking for work. That’s just plain wrong. EI is designed to cushion the
blow of an unexpected layoff. It should not be considered as an
extension of benefits owed to an employee based on his or her past
efforts. As low as the EI payout is, it is far above the corresponding
investment from the employee, if taken to its leveraged limit (32 weeks
of benefits for 10 weeks of work.)
What Mr. Flaherty actually said is, “There’s no such thing as a bad
job. The only bad job is not having a job.” This was not a good quote
and I can’t fully agree. There are bad jobs. There are bad employers.
There are back-breaking jobs not suited to every well-intentioned
individual. There are jobs with inadequate safety and environmental
precautions. Taken to the extreme, Germany once considered forcing its
women receiving EI to accept jobs in the “sex trade.” Now that’s a bad
job. It also runs contrary to the notion of “choice.” But in general, a
car salesman could pump gas if he had to. A lumber grader could stock
shelves in a grocery store until a better job came along. I’ve even
heard of a doctor picking fruit. The idea that people should expect to
work for their bread and butter and not to coast on EI is sound and will
produce better citizens.
Now as to agreeing with the Official Opposition: the NDP, with its
socialist philosophy and its tendency to reject any of the moral values I
hold dear, is not often the champion of causes with which I agree.
However, the NDP has found a soft spot in the Conservative’s rigid
armour and I agree with them that their point is valid. It’s this: the
bundling together of a myriad of controversial items, including
environmental issues, Old Age Security changes and policies and
procedures around Employment Insurance. I have not had the time (nor
have the MPs) to read this 420-page bill and respond to it
intelligently. However, it seems a brutal method of ensuring passage of
potentially controversial laws by sheltering them under a budget
implementation bill. It presumes that all Conservative MPs will vote for
the assorted items—whether or not they agree— because, being a budget
bill, it becomes a confidence measure. If it fails to pass, the
government could be toppled. Mr. Harper is gambling that none of his MPs
will risk their political careers to vote against this huge bill, even
if they do not support all of its provisions. I agree with the NDP, the
Greens and the Liberals for asking that the bill be broken up, even if I
would not necessarily agree with their motives.
Now, if all the parties would just work together to protect innocent
human life in the womb, to restore traditional marriage and to eliminate
the gold-plated MP pension plans, I would agree with them on those
things as well. If not, I’ll just have to hold their feet to the fire…
In an article
applauding the work of Kevin Page and his Parliamentary Budget Office,
the Canadian Taxpayers Federation called on Parliament to protect the
independent work of that office by giving it that status and
independence of the office of the Auditor General.
The article pointed out that it was the Parliamentary Budget Officer
who was giving accurate information to Canadian citizens on the F-35
purchase and expressed concern that unless that work is shielded from
political interference by the government, Canadians might lose the
benefit of blunt and transparent assessments of the costs and benefits
of future spending projects. The article specifically referenced the
proposed purchase by the DND of a fleet of F-35 fighter jets, comparing
the PBO’s 2011 estimate of $30 billion to the much more comfortable
figure of $14.7 billion. The PBO has shown that the budget estimates put
forward by the Minister of Defence, Peter Mackay, were unrealistically
low and excluded costs without which the purchase of the jets would have
no benefit.
“It’s now clear that the only reliable cost information on the
F-35s given to Parliament or Canadians came from the Parliamentary
Budget Officer – not the government, not the Department of National
Defence, not any Minister responding to questions in the House of
Commons, ” said CTF Federal Director Gregory Thomas.
It’s a remarkably honest assessment of the issues of government
interference and partisan posturing. While the Official (and unofficial)
Opposition can be expected to react negatively to any government
initiative—especially when it involves national defence—the refreshing
nature of this commentary by the CTF is that it is presented without
partisan motives but purely in the interest of transparent, responsible
disclosure of government spending.
As an aside, the revelation of hidden costs shows two things:
There is a political temptation to disguise motives and intentions
for the sake of deluding the public, who are after expected to “forgive
and forget”.
The reality that government spending is going up, not down. The talk
of “budget cuts” and “restraint” is just so much window-dressing. It’s
easier to spend other peoples’ money than it is to explain the necessity
of wise and frugal cost-restraints.
With the successful passage of Bill C-19, Ending of the Long-Gun Registry Act,
Mr. Harper’s Conservative government has delivered on a long-standing
promise and they deserve credit for completing this task.
There will always be naysayers who equate guns with violence and who
think that a focus on punishing criminals as a regressive approach to
crime; in their opinion such an approach is lacking compassion and
narrow in perspective. The opposite is true and those arguments have
been made many times in many different ways. The NDP’s knee-jerk
resistance to C-19 was as predictable, boring and tiresome as its stance
on most other issues of consequence. “If it moves, shoot! If it keeps
moving, regulate it!”
For today, anyway, I say “Bravo!” to Candice Hoeppner and Vic Toews
who have kept pushing this bill in spite of the broken-record objections
of their critics. And a tip of the hat to Stephen Harper for keeping
his promise on this issue, at least.
Now back to the budget and the notion many of us share: that a
“Conservative” government should actually be pushing to achieve a
debt-free Canada, which would mean getting out of deficit much more
quickly than we are. A golden opportunity was missed on budget day—to
establish a realistic pension plan for MPs, one that would be fair to
taxpayers and hard-working citizens. But that is a topic for another
day. Today we thank those who have worked so hard to cut the wasteful
spending on the registry and we raise a toast to common sense and
perseverance. Well done!
In the multitude of pressing daily necessities, personal agendas and
the conflicting pressures of media, governments and traditions, it’s
easy to allow an idea or a project to become exalted to a place of
unassailable importance in our lives—sometimes to the detriment of our
deepest longings or our highest goals. In other words, a good idea or a
worthwhile project can “get away” from us and become the dominating
drive of our daily efforts, rather than an integral component of a
well-planned life-strategy.
The same is true for nations and whole societies. In our western
culture today and certainly in Canada, we often hear the cry, “What kind
of a nation will we leave for our grandchildren?” Statements are made
about preserving nature or saving the planet “for future generations.”
Yet today, in our nation, future generations are being destroyed in the
womb. Children and grandchildren whom we will never meet are being
snuffed out before they can experience the world that is being preserved
or shaped on their account; for them, the state of our planet will
never have any significance. The pristine rivers, saved for them from
pollution and mismanagement will run unfettered to the sea but those
children and grandchildren, sacrificed to the gods of pleasure and
convenience, will not be standing on their shores in solemn gratitude.
In fact, those rivers may be spared chemical pollution but they are
stained with the blood of the innocents.
In another example, in phrases repeated so often as to numb the mind,
some teachers and well-meaning citizens decry the closing of classrooms
and schools. Governments are impugned as “uncaring” for failing to keep
schools open or for failing to hire more teachers. The point is,
classrooms are made for students, not for teachers. Over 100,000 future
students and workers are killed by decree each year in Canada and the
empty classrooms that would have echoed with their laughter are silent.
Have the “educators” who are oh so busy sharing with their students the
guiltless doctrine of casual sex and the “quick-and-easy” solution for
unplanned pregnancy so little logic within them as to fail to see the
logical consequence of diminishing the value of life?
So it is in the preservation of “rights.” Of course, the central and
absolutely necessary right for any person is the right to life. Without
it, all other rights are meaningless. Yet university students, news
media and spokespeople of supposed stature in our nation spend their
time and energy venting about a so-called “right” to a free education,
or a “right” to have the state sanction their new-found sexual
“identity.” The complete, total and irrevocable abuse of taking away the
lives (and all the human rights) of 100,000 little people every year is
totally ignored.
There are two ways in which one could put a cart before a horse—in
time or physical arrangement. Neither one works. If we create a cart for
a horse to pull and have no horse to pull it, we have a useless item,
completely devoid of function. If we have both a horse and a cart and
hitch them up incorrectly (with the cart in front), we have a
dysfunctional combination of elements, doomed to fail, or even worse, to
work only in reverse. We must work our way back to the basics and
realize that the value of a right, or a classroom or a teacher or a
clean river is what it does for the boy or girl, the man or woman whom
God has created to people this planet for His own glory. Let’s put first
things first. Protecting innocent human life belongs in that category.
The Christian Heritage Party of Canada held its
triennial national membership convention last week in Abbotsford, BC. This
convention also marked CHP’s 25 years as Canada’s only solidly prolife federal
party. Members converged from across the country to discuss policies, elect new
members to the national executive and to renew their commitment to the
leadership and direction of the party.
National
Leader, Jim Hnatiuk of Nova Scotia, spoke on the convention theme of “Setting
Our Sails for Tomorrow.” A former sailor, Mr. Hnatiuk spent 25 years in
Canada’s Navy and was able to bring a personal touch to the metaphors of
shipbuilding and navigation. His remarks were enthusiastically received by
those in attendance who reaffirmed their support for his leadership.
The convention featured a series
of plenary sessions in which members agreed on improvements to the party
constitution, policies and platform statements. Items of discussion included:
provision for integrating digital participation in future party
deliberations, more flexibility in local district organization, reducing
the cost and red tape involved in adoption, the approval of CHP’s unique Family
Care Allowance, firearms policies, integrity analysis of candidates,
immigration policies, health care and pensions, life and justice issues and
more.
In
addition to the plenary sessions, delegates also participated in a series of
workshops and presentations. Presenters included Jakki Jeffs, from Alliance for Life Ontario, the
sponsor of “We Want the Debate”, Michael Coren, Sun News host, speaking on the
challenges we face in a biased media environment, former CHP Leader Ron Gray,
speaking on today’s abhorrent slave trade, Jordan Bateman, BC representative of
the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, CHP Surrey members Adam Vandenhoven and Paul
Jubenville who shared insights on photography, videography and electronic
elements of campaigning and the Lethbridge Youth Caucus who led youth and
others in a discussion of engaging youth in the issues of the day. There were
also information tables for the 180 Project and Prayer Canada as well as tables
hosted by supportive businesses.
In regard to establishing the new national executive
for the next three years, Luke Kwantes, of Smithers, BC, was chosen to serve as
the new National President. Peter Vogel, of Bowmanville, Ontario will serve as
Vice President. Martha Sjaarda from St. Ann’s, Ontario has become the National
Secretary and Ron Benell of Portage La Prairie, Manitoba takes on the job of
National Treasurer. Jim Hnatiuk reaffirmed his appointment of Rod Taylor of
Telkwa, BC, as his Deputy Leader.
The CHP
Canada delegates also were introduced to the leaders of the two first provincial
wings of the party. Wilf Hanni is the Interim Leader of CHP British Columbia
and Colin Atkins leads the fledgling CHP Manitoba which is in the process of
registering as a provincial party there.
The
convention was rounded out with a Gala Dinner featuring keynote speaker,
Michael Coren and a Candidates’ Appreciation Brunch on Saturday morning
was followed by a short meeting of the new national board. Many members
expressed their appreciation, enthusiasm and intent to continue to work hard to
provide a credible political party with comprehensive solutions for the
challenges of the 21st Century.
Photos above:
#1 CHP National Leader Jim Hnatiuk, (courtesy of Stephen Plamondon)
#2 members of the incoming and outgoing national board (courtesy of Stephen Plamondon)
Photo #3: 11 members from Skeena-Bulkley Valley, (courtesy of Alice Tuininga)
The Skeena-Bulkley Valley CHP Youth were again active this past year trying to support a local housing initiative. Sparrows Christian Housing Society has started building a home in Smithers, designed for independent living for adults who have intellectual disabilities. The youth have been doing various fund raising activities for Sparrows, while at the same time being visibly present in the community during the annual Fall Fair, and taking part in the local parade.
By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP
The Skeena-Bulkley Valley CHP Youth were again active this past year trying to support a local housing initiative. Sparrows Christian Housing Society has started building a home in Smithers, designed for independent living for adults who have intellectual disabilities. The youth have been doing various fund raising activities for Sparrows, while at the same time being visibly present in the community during the annual Fall Fair, and taking part in the local parade.
