Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Furey a major contrast with Trudeau on affordability

Published

5 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Jay Goldberg 

If Canadians want to find an example of a Liberal politician who cares about affordability, they should look to St. John’s, not Ottawa.

Time and time again, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey has stood on the side of taxpayers.

The latest example is his government’s decision to extend its 8.05 cent per litre gas tax cut for another year.

The gas tax cut has been in place for 21 months and has saved the average two-car Newfoundland and Labrador family more than $800. Another 12 months of lower gas prices will see family savings soar to more than $1,000.

Furey first announced the temporary tax cut in June 2022 and has now extended it twice.

The Furey government has also spoken out strongly about the detrimental impact of the carbon tax on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

In criticizing the Trudeau government’s carbon tax late last year, Furey noted “there is no subway” for his constituents to take as an alternative to the ever-increasing costs of driving a car to get to work or to bring kids to school.

That comment was a jibe at the infamous remarks federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland made when encouraging Canadians who can’t afford to pay the carbon tax to bike or take transit.

Furey noted if rural Canadians don’t have other transit options – and many don’t – then “the fundamental premise on which the [carbon tax] is based is flawed.”

Furey was also a leader in calling on Trudeau to take the carbon tax off all home heating, noting repeatedly that heating one’s home in Canada in the winter is not optional.

Under pressure, Trudeau finally did so through a temporary suspension of the carbon tax on home heating oil, which is a popular method of home heating in Atlantic Canada, but not in other regions of the country.

To Furey’s credit, he continued to call on the federal government to offer relief to Canadians who don’t use furnace oil for home heating.

Juxtapose that against the policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Without campaigning on it, Trudeau sprung a carbon tax on Canadians in 2019. He’s increased it every year since. And he plans to keep jacking it up every year until 2030.

Trudeau has tried to sell his policies by claiming most Canadians are getting more money back from carbon tax rebates than they pay in carbon taxes. Many of Trudeau’s allies have suggested that somehow the carbon tax actually is an affordability measure.

But the Parliamentary Budget Officer has laid out the truth: the average Canadian family is losing money from the carbon tax, big time.

The average Newfoundland and Labrador family lost $347 from the carbon tax last year, even after the rebates. That’s set to climb to $1,316 a year by 2030.

For years, Trudeau told us families would be better off with the carbon tax. But after pressure from Furey and other Atlantic Canadian politicians, he temporarily removed the carbon tax on home heating oil for the next three years.

If that’s not a mea culpa that the carbon tax makes life less affordable, then Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny must be real.

The broader contrast between Furey and Trudeau is their approach to cost of living. Furey looks at what’s taking cash out of families’ wallets – gas and carbon taxes – and tries to lessen that burden by fighting for lower taxes. Trudeau’s solution to make life more affordable appears to be more taxes, more spending and more debt.

The bottom line is that Trudeau, who is sinking in the polls and faces frustrated taxpayers from coast to coast, should learn a thing or two from Furey. Canadians want life to be more affordable, and that means lowering the tax burden, not increasing it.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Addictions

New lawsuit challenges Ontario’s decision to prohibit safe consumption services

Published on

Kensington Market Overdose Prevention Site in Toronto, Dec. 18, 2024. [Photo credit: Alexandra Keeler]

By Alexandra Keeler

Critics says Ontario’s plan to replace supervised consumption sites with HART Hubs will exacerbate harms to drug addicts and strain the health-care system

The operator of a Toronto overdose prevention site is challenging Ontario’s decision to prohibit 10 supervised consumption sites from offering their services.

In December, Neighbourhood Group Community Services and two individuals launched a constitutional challenge to Ontario legislation that imposes 200-metre buffer zones between supervised consumption sites and schools and daycares. The Neighbourhood Group will be forced to close its site in Toronto’s Kensington Market as a result.

In its court challenge, the organization is arguing site closures discriminate against individuals with “substance use disabilities” and increase drug users’ risk of death and disease.

The challenge is the latest sign of growing opposition to Ontario’s decision to either shutter supervised consumption sites or transition them into Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) Hubs. The hubs will offer drug users a range of primary care and housing solutions, but not supervised consumption, needle exchanges or the “safe supply” of prescription drugs.

Critics say the decision to suspend supervised consumption services will harm drug users and the health-care system.

“We’re very happy that the HART Hubs are being funded,” said Bill Sinclair, CEO of Neighbourhood Group Community Services. “They’re a great asset to the community.”

“[But] we want HART Hubs and we want supervised consumption sites.”

Our content is always free.

Subscribe to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

‘Come under fire’

On Thursday, the Ontario government announced that nine of the 10 supervised consumption sites located near centres with children would transition into HART Hubs. The Neighbourhood Group’s site is the only one not offered the opportunity to transition, because it is not provincially funded.

Laila Bellony, a harm reduction manager at a supervised consumption site at the Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre in Toronto, says she is worried that drug users may avoid using HART Hubs altogether if they do not facilitate the use of drugs under the supervision of trained staff.

Data show this oversight can prevent deaths by facilitating immediate intervention in the event of an overdose.

Bellony is also concerned the site closures will increase the strain on other health-care services. She predicts longer wait times and bed shortages in hospital emergency rooms, as well as increased paramedic response times.

“I think the next thing that will happen is the medical or health-care system is going to come under fire for being sub-par. But it’s really all starting here from this decision,” she said.

She questions how the HART Hubs will meet demand for detox and recovery services or housing solutions.

Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre and its sister site, the Queen West Site, serve hundreds of clients, Bellony says. By contrast, Ontario’s HART Hub rollout plan indicates all 19 hubs will together provide 375 new housing units across the province.

“The HART Hub model is not a horrible model,” said Bellony. “It’s the way that it’s being implemented that’s ill-informed.”

In a response to requests for commenta media spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Health directed Canadian Affairs to its August news release. That release lists proposals for increased safety measures at remaining sites, and a link to a HART Hub “client journey.”

On Dec. 3, the Auditor General of Ontario, Shelley Spence, released a report criticizing the health ministry’s “outdated” opioid strategy, noting it has not been updated since 2016.

National data show a 6.7 per cent drop in opioid deaths in early 2024. But experts caution it is too soon to call it a lasting trend. Opioid toxicity deaths in 2023 were up 205 per cent from 2016.

“We concluded that the Ministry does not have effective processes in place to meet the challenging and changing nature of the opioid crisis in Ontario,” the auditor general’s report says.

“The Ministry did not … provide a thorough, evidence-based business case analysis for the 2024 new model … [HART Hubs] to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of Ontarians.”

Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre’s Queen West Site in Toronto, Dec. 18, 2024. [Photo credit: Alexandra Keeler]

‘Ill-informed’

Ontario has cited crime and public safety concerns as reasons for blocking supervised consumption sites near centres with children from offering their services.

“In Toronto, reports of assault in 2023 are 113 per cent higher and robbery is 97 per cent higher in neighbourhoods near these sites compared to the rest of the city,” Ontario Health Minister Sylvia Jones’ office said in an Aug. 20 press release.

The province has also cited concerns about prescription drugs dispensed through safer supply programs being diverted to the black market.

Police chiefs and sergeants in the Ontario cities of London and Ottawa have confirmed safer supply diversion is occurring in their municipalities.

“We are seeing significant increases in the availability of the diverted Dilaudid eight-milligram tablets, which are often prescribed as part of the safe supply initiatives,” London Police Chief Thai Truong said at a Nov. 26 parliamentary committee meeting examining the effect of the opioid epidemic and strategies to address it.

But Bellony disputes the claim that neighbourhoods with supervised consumption sites experience higher crime rates.

“Some of the things that [the ministry is] saying in terms of crime being up in neighborhoods with safe consumption sites — that’s not necessarily true,” she said.

In response to requests for information about the city’s crime rates, Nadine Ramadan, a senior communications advisor for the Toronto Police Service, directed Canadian Affairs to the service’s crime rate portal.

The portal shows assaults, break-and-enters and robberies in the West Queen West neighborhood have remained relatively stable since the Queen West supervised consumption site opened in 2018.

In contrast, crime rates are higher in some nearby neighbourhoods without supervised consumption sites, such as The Junction.

“While I can’t speak to perceptions about a rise in crime specifically around supervised consumption sites, I can tell you that violent crime is increasing across the GTA,” Ramadan told Canadian Affairs. She referred questions about Jones’ statements about crime data to the health minister’s office.

Jones’ office did not respond to multiple follow-up inquiries.

Mixed feelings

In July, Canadian Affairs reported that business owners in the West Queen West neighbourhood were grappling with a surge in drug-related crime.

Rob Sysak, executive director of the West Queen West Business Improvement Association, says there are mixed feelings about their neighbourhood’s site ceasing to offer safe consumption services.

“I’m not saying [the closure] is a positive or negative decision, because we won’t know until after a while,” said Sysak, whose association works to promote business in the area.

Sysak says he has heard concerns from business owners that needles previously used by individuals at the site may now end up on the street.

Bellony supports the concept of HART Hubs offering addiction and support services. But she says she finds the province’s plan for the hubs to be unclear and unrealistic.

“It seems very much like they kind of skipped forward to the ideal situation at the end,” she said. “But all the steps that it takes to get there … are unaddressed.”


This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

 

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Fraser Institute

Trudeau’s legacy includes larger tax burden for middle-class Canadians

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

On Monday outside Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians he plans to resign, a reporter asked Trudeau to name his greatest accomplishments. In response, among other things, Trudeau said his government “reduced” taxes for the “middle class.” But this claim doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

After taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government reduced the second-lowest personal income tax rate from 22.0 per cent to 20.5 per cent—a change that was explicitly sold by Trudeau as a tax cut for the middle class. However, this change ultimately didn’t lower the amount of taxes paid by middle-class Canadians. Why?

Because the government simultaneously eliminated several tax credits—which are intended to reduce the amount of income taxes owed—including income splitting, the children’s fitness credit, children’s arts tax credit, and public transit tax credits. By eliminating these tax credits, the government helped simplify the tax system, which is a good thing, but it also raised the amount families pay in income taxes.

Consequently, most middle-income families now pay higher taxes. Specifically, a 2022 study published by the Fraser Institute found that nearly nine in 10 (86 per cent) middle-income families (earning household incomes between $84,625 and $118,007) experienced an increase in their federal personal income taxes as a result of the Trudeau government’s tax changes.

The study also found that other income groups experienced tax increases. Nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of families with a household income between $54,495 and $84,624 paid higher taxes as a result of the tax changes. And across all income groups, 61 per cent of Canadian families faced higher personal income taxes than they did in 2015.

The Trudeau government also introduced a new top tax bracket on income over $200,000—which raised the top federal personal income tax rate from 29 per cent to 33 per cent—and other tax changes that increased the tax burden on Canadians including the recent capital gains tax hike. Prior to this hike, investors who sold capital assets (stocks, second homes, cottages, etc.) paid taxes on 50 per cent of the gain. Last year, the Trudeau government increased that share to 66.7 per cent for individual capital gains above $250,000 and all capital gains for corporations and trusts.

According to the Trudeau government, this change will only impact the “wealthiest” Canadians, but in fact it will impact many middle-class Canadians. For example, in 2018, half of all taxpayers who claimed more than $250,000 of capital gains in a year earned less than $117,592 in normal income. These include Canadians with modest annual incomes who own businesses, second homes or stocks, and who may choose to sell those assets once or infrequently in their lifetimes (when they retire, for example). These Canadians will feel the real-world effects of Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike.

While reflecting on his tenure, Prime Minister Trudeau said he was proud that his government reduced taxes for middle-class Canadians. In reality, taxes for middle-class families have increased since he took office. That’s a major part of his legacy as prime minister.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X