Ford government mulling COVID-19 lockdown in southern Ontario starting Boxing Day, sources say cbc.ca/news/canada/to…#onpoli
Multiple sources in and outside government who are aware of the proposal for southern Ontario say that the lockdown plan is similar to what will take effect in Quebec after Christmas Day. The plan is to be put to a meeting of Ford's cabinet Friday afternoon.
Quebec is closing all non-essential businesses and issuing a mandatory work-from-home order for nearly all office employees until Jan. 11 and asking all schools to go online-only for the first week that classes resume in the new year.
Northern Ontario would be excluded from all the lockdown measures, say the sources, who have knowledge of the plans and spoke to CBC News on condition they not be named.
The precise closures and restrictions in the widespread lockdown have yet to be decided, the sources say.
However, one government source says in-person classes at schools would not resume in the areas under lockdown until Jan. 11.
At least one major GTA child-care provider in the city warned parents to be prepared for a potential shutdown early in the new year.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Oh, look: The federal environment department says that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's new carbon tax combined with his looming clean fuel standard will disproportionately hit low-income earners, the middle class, seniors, single moms and contribute to energy poverty.
'It is expected increases in transportation fuel & home heating expenses would disproportionately impact lower and middle-income households, those living in single detached households ... those without control over the energy efficiency of their dwellings that use heating oil ...
" ... as well as households currently experiencing energy poverty or those likely to experience energy poverty in the future ... single mothers are more likely to live in lower-income households, and may be more vulnerable to energy poverty ... "
I don't agree it's this bad but the idea 80% of households gets more in federal carbon tax rebates than they pay out in carbon taxes needs a reality check for several reasons: See below:
1) The claim depends on information the public doesn't have easy access to. (2) It's based on formulas not easily understood (3) The gov't emphasizes direct carbon taxes on gas & natural gas but de-emphasizes indirect costs passed on by businesses to the public.
(4) Large families and rural residents pay higher carbon taxes than smaller, urban ones, regardless of income. (5) It may be true most households get more in rebates than they pay in taxes -- the credible Parliamentary budget officer says that's the case. But 80%? I'm skeptical.
Once again:
'The Climate Action Secretariat prepares and publishes the Provincial Inventory annually, with up to a two-year delay to allow time to assemble the information. The 1990-2018 Provincial Inventory was published in August 2020.'
'In 2018, BC's gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as reported in the Provincial Inventory, were 67.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e). This is an increase of 4.5 MtCO2e (7%) from 63.4 MtCO2e in 2007, the baseline year for our emission reduction targets.'
You're the 2nd person who has cited this study. It's from 2015 which means it's based on data before that. My #s come from 2020 from the BC govtt itself based on its latest available data from 2018. (see below). Also, B.C. already has the highest carbon tax in Canada.
'In 2018, BC's gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as reported in the Provincial Inventory, were 67.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e). This is an increase of 4.5 MtCO2e (7%) from 63.4 MtCO2e in 2007, the baseline year for our emission reduction targets.'
'Net emissions in 2018, after including 1.0 MtCO2e in offsets from forest management projects not covered in the inventory, were 66.9 MtCO2e. This is an increase of 3.5 MtCO2e (6%) from 2007.'
Okay, it's not as simple as saying Trump paid $750 in taxes in 2016 and 2017. From the New York Times story:
'Mr. Trump paid alternative minimum tax in seven years between 2000 and 2017 — a total of $24.3 million, excluding refunds he received after filing.'
'For 2015, he paid $641,931, his first payment of any federal income tax since 2010.
His potential taxable income income in 2016 and 2017 included $24.8 million in profits from sources related to his celebrity status and $56.4 million for the loans he did not repay.'
'Each time, he requested an extension to file his 1040; and each time, he made the required payment to the I.R.S. for income taxes he might owe — $1 million for 2016 and $4.2 million for 2017.'
Excellent site on history of US Presidents and tax returns with two key statements: taxnotes.com/presidential-t…
(1) Individual income tax returns - including those of public figures and U.S. presidents - are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. The IRS is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.
(2) While Trump may be unwilling to release presidential tax returns currently under audit, that’s a prudential decision, not a legal one. There’s no legal bar to releasing returns that are under examination.