By on December 10, 2014

IMG_5239-450x299

Quebec’s love affair with small, efficient cars is well-known around these parts. And a new government measure will only further enable that, as Quebec is set to raise annual vehicle registration fees based o vehicle’s displacement size.

In an economic update released by the province, new measures were announced for vehicles with displacements of 4.0L or higher. The fees will rise by about 10 percent for engines ranging from 4 to 5.2L, while an additional 19 tiers of tariffs will be enacted for engines 5.3L or larger. At the highest end, a 7.0L engine will cost an additional $214.20 according to the CAA.

In addition, new one-time fees will be enacted for new vehicle purchases. The fee schedule is

  • $50 for a 4.0L to 4.9 L engine
  • $100 for a 5.0L to 5.9 L engine
  • $200 for a 6.0L engine

The fee will largely impact buyers of pickup trucks, as most passenger cars, CUVs and SUVs offer engines below the threshold. Expect the 2.7L and 3.5L Ford Ecoboost, the 3.6L GM mid-sizers and the 3.6L Ram trucks to become very popular among Quebec’s truck buyers.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

144 Comments on “Quebec Hikes Vehicle Registration Pegged To Engine Displacement...”


  • avatar
    YellowDuck

    blah blah…outrage…blah blah…social engineering…blah blah people should be able to drive what they want….blah blah…government picking winners and losers…blah blah…communist canuckistan.

    There. Now none of the Americans or Albertans need to comment :)

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      There will be plenty of outrage in Quebec too, they don’t take much lightly.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Vive la liberte de Quebecoise!

        • 0 avatar
          calgarytek

          CoreyDL – you can have your ‘liberte Quebecoise’ but not on one cent of transfer payments to preserve your so called culture. Quebec exists BECAUSE it’s propped up by the Western provinces. You’re broke – just like Europe which you desperately want to be like.

          Raising taxes on engine displacement is nothing more than a money grab to fund the ever increasing interest payments on your provincial debt. It’s over 50% of provincial GDP and that has you worried. Meanwhile, public services are abysmal to say the least and public servants vandalize public property to protest their unfunded pension plans.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            I think Corey’s from Ohio, just sayin’

          • 0 avatar
            raresleeper

            Cleveland rocks…?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            HAHAHA I am from Ohio, yep. I just know some French so I threw it out there.

            I went to Niagara Falls once. It’s like America there, but more full of trash and foreign people and waterfalls.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            So Calgarytek, what about all of those decades when western Canada was propped up by equalization payments from eastern Canada?

            Not saying that the public service in Quebec isnt’ a prime example of entitlement and a hotbed for Quebec ‘nationalists’.

          • 0 avatar
            dash riprock

            So Calgarytek, what about all of those decades when western Canada was propped up by equalization payments from eastern Canada?

            Uhm…what decades did Alberta receive equalization payments?

            Are you talking about more than 50 years ago?

          • 0 avatar

            I’m on Ontarian living in Quebec, so I have a few things.

            “Quebec exists BECAUSE it’s propped up by the Western provinces.” – Somewhat true

            “so called culture” – After living here I can say that it IS quite distinctive, and I understand their attitude towards protecting it, even if I don’t like the way they’ve gone about it.

            “You’re broke” – Yes, sadly no plentiful oil reserves to fall back on. But then again that is why the populace intelligently tossed out the party that was talking about separation again (not wanting to threaten the economic standing of the province).

            “Raising taxes on engine displacement is nothing more than a money grab” – You can’t have it both ways. Either you don’t want transfer payments, in which case you should approve of any action to try and obtain funds from the province’s own population, or you approve of the transfer payments. That’s the situation.

            And yet, with all of this, you couldn’t pay me to live in Calgary over Montreal. Not in a million years.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            I detect a mild case of the Wild Rose hutt burt.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            From the always informative but never quite 100% correct Wikipedia:
            A formal system of equalization payments was first introduced in 1957. The idea was based on the proposals of American economist James M. Buchanan and they were introduced mainly to help the struggling Atlantic provinces who were seeing low rates of growth and high rate of emigration to central Canada.

            The original program had the goal of giving each province the same per capita revenue as the two wealthiest provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, in three tax bases: personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and succession duties (inheritance taxes). Five years later, 50 per cent of natural resource revenues were included as the fourth tax base. At the same time, however, the standard of the two wealthiest provinces was lowered to the national average. In 1967 the system was redesigned to work with every government revenue scheme with the exception of energy; this gave Canada by far the world’s most generous system of equalization payments.

            The rise in energy prices and the resulting increase in provincial natural resource royalties in the late 1970s created several problems for the equalization formula.

          • 0 avatar

            @Arthur Dailey: The Wiki info is interesting but doesn’t necessarily paint the whole picture. The creation of Canada through the confederation of the provinces was very beneficial to the west (Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces, etc.) and quite damaging to the Atlantic provinces which had previously thrived on the trade that went through them to the rest of the continent. Equalization payments were a sort of political apology for the damage confederacy had done. Of course, we didn’t predict Ontario would become a ‘have-not’ and that Alberta would strike with rich with oil.

          • 0 avatar
            319583076

            I worked with a French-Candian for a couple of years when I lived in NYC. I have a good friend who was born and raised in Ottawa although he hasn’t lived there for 15 years. I’ve been to Ottawa, but sadly no other part of Canada. The border authorities entering Canada were way more serious than I expected.

            Couple my limited experience with an entertaining-yet fictitious depiction of various Canadian and Quebecois sentiments and politics illustrated in Infinite Jest and call me fascinated with the entire situation.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “I worked with a French-Candian for a couple of years when I lived in NYC. I have a good friend who was born and raised in Ottawa”

            OMG, next thing you know you’re going to tell us you married one

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            On my family trip crossing into Canada, north of Buffalo, summer of 08. Seven of us in a 2002 Chevy Savanna 2500 Gladiator conversion. My dad is at the wheel, my mom in the passenger seat. She nominates herself to talk over my dad to the border guard, who already looked irritable.

            Border Guard: Why are you crossing the border?

            Mom: (suspicious tone) Ohhh we’re jest havin a family vacation. We are all related, except the one back there (points to brother’s friend) he’s a friend.

            Border Guard: Are you bringing any currency into the country?

            Mom: OH WE GOT LOTS OF MONEY!

            Me, mentally: OH MY EFFING GOD.

            We got through after a few more questions, but boy did I let her have it after we pulled away.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            (spit my coffee) Corey, your mother’s a hoot

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            It might have been funny if she were not
            a) totally serious, and;
            b) thought that was an appropriate response.

          • 0 avatar
            dash riprock

            So Arthur…the answer to the equalization question is that Alberta has not received equalization payments for 50ish years. So…the yeah but we supported you argument is very light to say the least

            Surprisingly, central Canada developed a equalization program that benefited itself, and the maritimes where federal $ traditionally lled to votes.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Yes prior to Confederation Nova Scotia was one of the most affluent places on the planet. It enjoyed trade with New England, the Caribbean and Britain.

            Confederation, helped to destroy that.

        • 0 avatar
          calgarytek

          CoreyDL

          Wow you had me worried. May want to unlearn your ‘Quebecois’ as it leads to some incoherent thought processes.

          Throwing politics aside – given the low cost of electricity in the province, I’m surprised we don’t see many more Nissan Leaf’s.

          GM’s EV1 could have found fertile cold weather testing ground in, say, Quebec City.

          Unrealized potential…

    • 0 avatar
      cornellier

      No Quebecois buying a 4-5l motor cares about a 50$ tax.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Quebec is as close to Europe as you can get in North America, in every sense (socially, economically, etc).

    I say this as a good thing.

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      Not sure how youth unemployment levels over 50% is a good thing (Spain).

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        deanst you do understand that Spain is but one country in a large EU. It’s like saying Mississippi and South Carolina’s youth unemployed at 23% represents all of ‘Murica, when it quite clearly does not.

        • 0 avatar
          geeber

          The unemployment rate for all workers in an entire nation is not remotely equivalent to the unemployment rate for one category of workers in two states out of 50 within a nation.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Unemployment, wage disparity, bankruptcies, etc are far greater in the USA than in most nations of northern Europe, particularly those with the most historically socialist culture.

            So how can you explain that?

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            Lookee here:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_unemployment_rate

            U.S. is currently 5.9%.

            Even with tiny, racially and culturally homogenous populations and a first-world educational, scientific and industrial heritage, several northern Euro nations are higher.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            You shouldn’t show people stuff like that, it spoils everybody’s fun of looking down their collective noses at the US, Mr. Smartypants

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The US typically has lower unemployment rates than the Europeans. Income inequality is another matter.

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            I know, but I’m so emotional.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            The Eurozone unemployement rate is currently 11.5% while in the US it is 5.8%. Since this thread is about Canada, the current unemployment rate there is 6.2% for comparison.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Arthur started it…

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Unemployment statistics do not tell the entire picture.

            The two major examples being:
            1) Those who have given up looking for work, or no longer qualify for unemployment benefits. This is particularly prevalent in the USA and Canada. Creating an almost permanent underclass. They should be added to the unemployment statistics. There are a number of organizations that calculate these.
            2) Those who are employed in ‘precarious employment’. For example those who are employed on a temporary basis, who hold part-time jobs or who are woefully underemployed. Again the North American nations (Canada and the USA) have an increasing number of people who fall under these.

            Economically, except for those on the top, you are now much better off being a citizen of Northern European nations (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark) than being a citizen of the US. Not only regarding employment but also social mobility (which previously had been a major reason behind US prosperity), health care, life expectancy, employment security and now even standard of living.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Well, that’s a nice little spiel from across the boarder just choked full of assumptions presumptions and generalizations that mean absolutely zero, thank you

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Lie2Me,
            Actually based on realistic economic principles and conditions.

            Since I teach labour economics, these things do matter to me.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            These are theories which are great for the classroom, but don’t mean much in the real world

            “Those who have given up looking for work, or no longer qualify for unemployment”

            How many, 1000, 10,000 a million? Makes a difference

            ” Those who are employed in ‘precarious employment’. For example those who are employed on a temporary basis, who hold part-time jobs or who are woefully underemployed”

            How many of those are there, one million, ten million?

            If you’re going to go around saying this…

            “Unemployment, wage disparity, bankruptcies, etc are far greater in the USA than in most nations of northern Europe”

            You better have something to back it up with, because it’s not very convincing otherwise and not really fair to your students who depend on you for accurate knowledge

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Trying this again!
      Sources from different political spectrums. Based on their writing the US unemployment rate can be as high as double the official figures. In Canada the numbers are roughly parallel.

      If you wish to fully research this, I can recommend some courses.

      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/not-looking-for-work-why-labor-force-participation-has-fallen-during-the-recovery
      Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recovery
      By James Sherk
      Abstract
      The post-recession economy has undergone the slowest recovery in 70 years. In addition to more than 6 percent unemployment five years after the recession officially ended, labor force participation has fallen sharply since the recession began in December 2007. Today, 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or searching for work. The drop in unemployment since 2009 is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. Demographic factors explain less than one-quarter of the decreased labor force participation. The rest comes from increased school enrollment and more people collecting disability benefits. Over 6 percent of U.S. adults are now on Social Security Disability Insurance. This is no time to make it more difficult for businesses to create jobs.
      47% of unemployed Americans have given up looking for work

      Time Magazine September 2014
      http://time.com/109335/unemployed-americans/

      http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/05/02/obamanomics_92_million_americans_not_working
      The labor force participation rate declined or decreased to 62%. That is the lowest it has been since 1978. What that means is only 62% of Americans of working age have job.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        You’re posting statistics from Rush Limbaugh?…

        .

        *Face Palm*

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Yes, to prove that this was not some socialist conspiracy. Even right wingers are aware of the fact that official unemployment statistics are of very little actual value, they generally measure only those collecting unemployment related benefits.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Yes, to prove that this was not some socialist conspiracy.”

            The conspiracy stuff is coming from the right. They’re making the same points that you are.

            The fact is that the US labor force participation has been trending downward since the turn of the century and it is above that of the Eurozone and similar to Canada’s. It’s not as if the rate has ever been anything close to 100%.

            The US has six unemployment rates. All of them are valid, they just measure different things.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Some context might help. The nations with the highest labor force participation rates, according to the World Bank:

            Tanzania
            Madagascar
            Qatar
            Equatorial Guinea
            Zimbabwe
            Rwanda
            Eritrea
            Mozambique
            Ethiopia
            Burkina Faso

            You want to be like them?

      • 0 avatar
        mik101

        @Arthur
        You’re wasting your breath. He’s not providing any counter evidence.

        I’d love to know how many of those that were looking for work and are now employed again had to take huge pay cuts to get a new job. I’d guess that number would look quite interesting next to the 5.9% and 6.2% in the USA and here in Canada.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          If by “he” you mean me, counter what evidence? Anyone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is a credible source is not capable of a rational, intelligent debate. Go back to watching Fox News and enjoy your life with your head up your butt

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Actually U.S. labour participation rates consistently increased in the later part of the 20th century with the move of women away from ‘at home’ work into the labour force. Actually participation rates peaked just prior to the turn of the century.

            http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rate-september-2014-2014-10

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          US labour participation rates actually peaked just prior to the turn of this century. They increased throughout most of the latter part of the 20th century with the shift of women into the workforce rather than ‘at home’ work.

          http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rate-september-2014-2014-10

          Sorry if this is a duplicate, posting is becoming increasingly frustrating.

  • avatar
    jdash1972

    DAMMIT OBAMA!!!!

  • avatar
    Stumpaster

    I got all excited from the headline thinking that they put some unreasonably high fees on vehicles with over 2.0l engines. That would be interesting.

  • avatar
    petezeiss

    “Now none of the Americans or Albertans need to comment”

    Is there sectarian strife between Albertans and the rest of Canuckistan?

    • 0 avatar
      YellowDuck

      I don’t know about sectarian. Alberta is just kind of our Texas.

      • 0 avatar
        schmitt trigger

        I was under the impression that the real blood feud was between BC and Quebec

        • 0 avatar

          BC and Quebec are actually more similar, politically (i.e., left leaning). The feud is typically between Alberta and Quebec, or Ontario and Quebec.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @EChid – How do you figure BC and Quebec are similar politically?

            The NDP in BC are what one would call the “left”. The BC “Liberals” are just rebadged Social Credit which for the most part are Conservative. We don’t tend to have the same extremes of “left” and “right” like the USA. Our “right” whether it be Provincial or Federal would be more centrist when compared to the USA.

            For many years BC has been part of the “feud” with the East. BC for most of Confederation has been a “have” province like Alberta.

            To be more specific, there has always been more of a hate for Ontario and Toronto then Quebec.

            My dad was a francophone from Saskatchewan and had relatives in and around Manitoba at the time of the Riel Rebellion. There was no love lost for the English i.e. British and Ontario. I’ve found that many Western Francophones view confederation differently than Quebec ones.

            Many of the comments are quite typical of how many Westerners (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba)view the East. For most of us anything East of Manitoba is “The East”. Central Canada to many of us is “the East”.

            Comments by others are also typical of “Easterners”.

            Funny to see those sentiments still exist.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Yes, Alberta carries the rest of the country on it’s back via transfer payments.

    • 0 avatar
      86er

      I haven’t noticed any feuds, other than insular and self-serving viewpoints on both sides.

      But enough of that nonsense, it’s a great country, folks! Come visit.

  • avatar
    rpn453

    What’s the logic? They just want to encourage forced induction?

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      No logic, they just elected a new “austerity at all cost” government, so there you go. They will pay more and get less. And wind-up with a larger deficit and smaller economy in the end.

      The fact that the tax is based on an irrelevant metric is just icing on the poutine. My bet is that whoever came-up with the logic drives a car with a 3.99 liter engine…

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        Gravy on the poutine. Not icing.

        Possibly cheese.

        • 0 avatar
          dolorean

          Loves me some poutine. Good with a Molsen Export. Now which province has the best MooseMilk?

          “My bet is that whoever came-up with the logic drives a car with a 3.99 liter engine” So your thought is that we are looking for a gummint lowlife driving a rust riden ’95 Dodge Dakota with the 3.9L V6? Cagey besterd.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Or a Grand Caravan with the 4.0 (actual 3,952 cc). Joke’s on them, the 3.6 is a better engine. I can see the law getting modified to 3,601 cc in a few years.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “What’s the logic?”

      Revenue.

  • avatar
    pragmatic

    Never understood displacement taxes. If I own a 426 Hemi Charger that is rarely driven what is the so called societal cost? If you want to limit CO2 emissions raise the tax on fuel. People will drive less and/or trade to more fuel efficient vehicles.
    If you want more room on the road make street parking illegal and charge for parking by vehicle size. Same in racing I never believed in displacement limits. If you want to limit power and speed limit fuel tank size or total fuel used in the race. Allow the engineers to find unique solutions not based on arbitrary design constraints.

    • 0 avatar
      Fenian

      From a policy standpoint, increased fuel taxes are much more efficient than the complex CAFE standards. Whether the public and elected officials would support them is an entirely different question.

      • 0 avatar
        dash riprock

        Looking at Cafe, from here in Canada, it seems like a typical bureaucratic response to a problem. You want a more efficient vehicle fleet? How about adjusting fuel taxes to achieve that goal? A handful of economists could monitor the fleet and the consumption of fuel, and adjust the fuel up and down to adjust demand. Of course, that would put heat on the politicians and no one wants to be seen in favour of increased taxes

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “How about adjusting fuel taxes to achieve that goal?”

          That won’t happen. People can philosophize all that they like, but Americans would not stand for Canadian levels of fuel taxation, let alone European levels. Higher fuel taxes would provide something that conservatives and liberal activists could all oppose.

          In any case, CAFE 2.0 does create incentives to make technological improvements to all sizes. It’s a better idea than the original version of CAFE, which encouraged automakers to make low-quality compacts for fleets that could be used to offset their gas guzzler sales.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      I agree, this tax makes no sense. Engine size has so much less to do with the overall size of the vehicle then ever before. Consumption/CO2 tax is paid at the pump. Why not a tax based on the weight of the car which might have some logical base in that a larger heavier car causes more wear and tear on the roads and generally takes up more space

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        As far as road maintenance goes, the weight differential between lighter and heavier passenger cars and pickups doesn’t matter. The semis are inflicting almost all of the damage.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          I know, I was just trying to attach some sort of logic to an illogical tax, crazy, right?

          • 0 avatar
            wmba

            Illogical?

            Here’s one tax we don’t pay in Canada – annual state and/ or local property taxes on our vehicles based on their “value”. Toronto did have an annual tax of $60, but that got repealed.

            Once you’ve purchased your vehicle here, there’s no more tax.

            So as usual, we have Americans fulminating over something that’s different from the way they do it, which of course is the only true and right way, while completely overlooking the fact they’re getting it in their shorts themselves, just in a different way.

            My car costs $85 per year to register. That’s it. No property tax assessment annually. No hidden fees.

            Now, of course, Quebec is about to change that a bit, but that lot are about as inward looking in their own unique way as the US is in theirs.

            Thr new AMG GT is a 4 litre twin turbo V8, so the one percenters get away free, as usual!

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Personal property tax is a state thing, I pay $75 a year to register my car in Wisconsin. That’s it, no other taxes or fees

      • 0 avatar
        andreroy55

        Back in the 1960s and maybe into the seventies, Quebec licencing fees were based on weight. Pretty simple, too. One cent per pound gross vehicle weight. At least that was for private cars, I don’t think I ever knew what it might have been for commercial vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      It is religion. Engine size is sinful. No logic. Faith.

  • avatar
    petezeiss

    “love affair with small, efficient cars”

    That’s one way of euphemizing it.

  • avatar
    dolorean

    Again with the Polyannas screeching about liberty or some such. You don’t want to pay the tax, then buy something with a smaller displacement. There’s freedom for you! It’s not like we don’t do this in the states, gentlemen, just in a more conviently off the radar way. Generally speaking, the more displacement, the more gasoline used, thereby paying more tax for greater displacement. Also, there are a few red, blue, and purple states that enjoy poking you in the eye when you tag your vehicle based on the engine size. V8, huh? That’ll be an extra 50 bucks. Not to mention the kick in the shorts insurance gives you for a V8 over the 6.

    This hardly seems like the eve of distruction.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Or, the government could let people choose which vehicle to buy without levying an additional tax on said choice.

      There is also a considerable difference between an insurance company setting policy premiums on actual loss and theft data for a particular vehicle, and a unit of government setting artificial categories and levying additional taxes to raise revenue.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Or the government could let people choose the vehicle they want without levying additional taxes on said choice. That sounds like “freedom,” too. At least, to those of us who ascribe to words their commonly accepted meaning.

      It also helps to understand the difference between an insurance company setting policy premiums by tabulating real-world data on theft and accidents rates for a particular vehicle, and a government setting artificial categories for vehicles and then using them to raise revenue.

      • 0 avatar
        clivesl

        What you are saying sounds dangerously close to socialism to me Geeber. We all know that external costs associated with the use of gasoline are not reflected in the price at the pump. So the more gas you use, the more you are sucking at the government teat.

        You want fair, figure out what it costs to have an oil based society and come up with the revenue to support it. The heaviest users would pay the most.

        Freedom isn’t free

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      “Generally speaking, the more displacement, the more gasoline used, thereby paying more tax for greater displacement.”

      Generally, but not absolutely. Nowhere near it. Additionally, the engine displacement points chosen are completely arbitrary, and don’t account for forced induction, which also increases fuel consumption.

      What sort of minds can pick arbitrary numbers and just decide to penalize people based on those numbers?

      • 0 avatar
        formula m

        Arbitrary like exactly 5.3l gets put in a higher category. If it was 5.4 there would only be hemi’s and HD trucks that private consumers use that fall into the second category. It would be pointless to tax such a small amount of vehicles so they made sure to include the very common 5.3 GM V8

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Trucks used for work/employment purposes would of course be eligible for deductions for tax purposes. That is as it should be.

    Otherwise despite some cogent arguments against, it is easy to see the logic behind this.

    Fuel taxes are already very high, raising them again would be a political ‘no go’.

    This ‘tax’ ticks all the political correctness boxes. Costs more for those who are guilty of conspicuous over consumption (large engines), will help to take ‘clunkers’ off the road (penalizes older, larger displacement vehicles), promotes the purchase/use of smaller ‘more efficient’ engines/cars.

    The next logical step is of course to tax horsepower. If you want to play, you will have to pay.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Taxes on fuel-inefficient vehicles might make sense. The problem is that with the diversity of engines for sale today displacement has pretty much nothing to do with fuel efficiency (or anything else, including engine weight).

    • 0 avatar
      formula m

      When I read 5.2L is the cutoff before the next level it looks very intentional. They wanted to generate more fees so they made sure the 5.3L GM trucks fall into the higher bracket.

      Many of the people in the larger cities in Quebec already drive small cars but Quebec is massive and most areas are small rural communites. Their roads are very poorly maintained and covered in potholes. Add the treacherous winter weather conditions many people in small towns “MUST” drive a truck. Even in the spring the dirt roads are mud/rutted from the snow melting. I live in Ottawa which is right across the bridge from Quebec and drive to my cottage in Quebec since I was a child.

      As I said earlier, compact cars dominate the cities and rich people In the city can afford to drive turbo BMW/Audi’s so they won’t be paying. It will largely fall on GM truck owners in rural areas. It’s probably impossible to earn a living in these small places as it is. That’s what I see when reading this

  • avatar
    kosmo

    Far fewer Polyannas screeching about liberty or some such so far than there are those preemptively criticizing it. But I degress.

    It’s a trivial amount of money, and this is just meant to pander to once side of the political fence while not being significant to truly alienate the other side. Welcome to astute politics.

    I want a similar “tax” on speeding in the Socialist Order of Oregon, where the freeway speed remains 65.

    I would send in my $200 today for the privilege of driving 75 without worry.

  • avatar
    mikey

    I can so see Ontario jumping on this one. Our present Ontario government owes its election, to the car hating downtown elites, in Ottawa and Toronto. The rest of Ontario ,where the distances are measured in hours, mean nothing to these people.

    The “victim a day” Toronto Star, will have an editorial, supporting such “progressive thinking” on the part of the Quebec government.

    Yeah….I can see a similar tax coming soon to Ontario. Oh..I fogot its not a tax its a “revenue tool”

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “I can so see Ontario jumping on this one. Our present Ontario government owes its election, to the car hating downtown elites, in Ottawa and Toronto”

      I’d hazard it owes it’s election to two of the most incompetent (Hudak) and shamelessly opportunistic (Horwath) opposition party leaders in some time. The election was Mr. Hudak’s to lose, not Ms. Wynne’s to win.

      That, and Ontario is still smarting from Harris, and can see quite plainly that Hudak would have followed in Harris and Harper’s footsteps.

      Personally, as a Dipper, I’m disappointed in Horwath. I was disappointed in Hampton. I was disappointed when Rae chickened out on provincial auto insurance. I’d like to see the NDP try something other than neoliberalism for a change.

      “The “victim a day” Toronto Star, will have an editorial, supporting such “progressive thinking” on the part of the Quebec government.”

      Nah, they’re busy tearing a strip off their supposed sugar daddy for mis-spending.

      But yes, victim-a-day is apropos. I would have said crisis-a-day, but I get the sentiment.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        A remarkably fair synopsis.
        Howarth was the tail wagging the dog and unlike David Lewis did not take full advantage of that opportunity, letting ambition cloud her thought process.

        Rae was never a true NDP’er. His entire family were entrenched in the Liberal Party elite and he eventually joined them.

        Hudak was viewed by many as nothing more than a puppet for his spouse, one of the most feared of Mike Harris’ entourage.

        Harris made some mistakes (how he dismantled Ontario Hydro, selling the 407) for which he will never be forgiven.

        That the voters could still vote Liberal, despite McGuinty’s inability to recognize the truth speaks volumes about the lack of a credible alternative. Christine Elliot should change that.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      Actually, it’s more like this: “We have to charge you user fees, but we won’t provide a service with your money. We’ll just keep it, because we’re against spending (on others).”

      I think all parties are guilty of this, after they get elected. It just seems such a waste to get all that beautiful tax revenue and then spend it on the same people who gave you the money in the first place.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    It was my general thought (as an American), that Canadians who didn’t live in Quebec are annoyed with Quebec. And those who live in Quebec are very happy with themselves and their Frenchness.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    ” Expect the 2.7L and 3.5L Ford Ecoboost, the 3.6L GM mid-sizers and the 3.6L Ram trucks to become very popular among Quebec’s truck buyers.”

    Which is funny because this tax doesn’t appear to account for turbochargers, indicating it has little to nothing to do with actual consumption. As we’ve seen, a 3.5L GTDI V6 can consume similar amounts of fuel as an NA 5.7L V8.

    Nannies rejoice at your newfound punishment on big engine buyers, for the schadenfraude is all that you’ll get from it.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’s a money grab, plain/simple. And stup!d on a lot of levels. Mostly they forgot you’re paying hundreds LESS, when purchasing the V8, than the turbo 6. That more than offsets the tax. And when buying a 30 to $40,000+ vehicle, who the hell cares either way.

  • avatar
    omer333

    What is that white car on the right in the header image?

    It looks fantastic.

  • avatar
    BunkerMan

    This will end up being mostly a business tax, since in and around the larger cities, trucks are not a common personal vehicle.

    I spent a couple of days earlier this year driving around Quebec City in my F150. Other than company vehicles or rentals (you can tell by the plate numbers) my truck was towering over everything else on the road. Hell, I had trouble fitting in some of the lanes on city streets, and I wasn’t even near Old Quebec. It was quite nice to drive in rush hour though, since people tended to yield to me.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Stupid question: What are they using the money for? Did they need the additional revenue, or could they have found this money elsewhere that wasn’t being used efficiently?

    Sorry, 2 stupid questions.

    • 0 avatar

      That’s a complicated one. Quebec shot itself in the foot with a move to separate in the 1970s. This instability pushed out the banks (Montreal had, historically, been the financial centre of Canada to this point) and therefore lots of tax revenue. Quebec is also in desparate financial straights. They have resources, but they spend a lot of money on social programs and poorly built infrastructure, and that means debt.

      So, yes, they do need the additional revenue, and this is probably the best they could have done.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      Do they need the revenue? Not particularly, but the new government is playing austerity politics. They will grab as much as they can, as fast as they can, and give nothing back in return.

      Quebec’s public spending deficit isn’t particularly bad, and was on track to be eliminated within the next few years. This may change, of course, if the austerity policies wreck the economy like they have in Europe and in the US.

      To answer your second question, lots of income sources would be more efficient than creating a new pseudo-moralistic, complicated, tiered tax. If fuel use is the “problem,” then they can just raise the fuel tax slightly. Nobody would even notice given the current low prices, and it would tax people based on how much they use resources, rather than based on the numbers on their trunklid.

  • avatar
    Brumus

    We also mandate the use of winter tires from December 15 to March 15 inclusive!

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      So are all these mandates helpful, or do they just force increased expenses on drivers?

      • 0 avatar
        Brumus

        Quebec already had an extremely high rate of winter tire utilization before usage became mandatory.

        This law now simply forces the few idiots or cheapskates (in the penny wise, pound foolish sense) who previously went with no-seasons year-round to do the right thing by December 15.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          My brother-in-law is a Canadian fellow, from Vancouver, and he is always ragging on the mandates imposed in Canada.

          Maybe that’s why he spends the vast majority of his time living in the Seattle area, to get away from all that, even though his money-making holdings are all in Canada.

          • 0 avatar
            mikey

            HDC……The “mandates ” that upset your brother in law, are a part of life up here in the north. They don’t thrill me either, but you learn to live with them. Or you find a way around them.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I think he is coping with them as best as he can. He’s not going to sell the properties he inherited from his parents and those properties are his sole income.

            My guess would be that for him, living in Kent-Desmoines, WA, USA, is his way to get around them.

            As long as he treats my sister right, we’ll get along just fine.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @highdesertcat

            I don’t whine too much about our taxes and rules since those taxes pay for things that I would have to finance or insure myself.

            I wonder how long your brother-in-law would whine about Canada if he all of a sudden developed renal failure?

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Bet you he goes back to Vancouver every time he needs free health care!

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “Bet you he goes back to Vancouver every time he needs free health care!”

            If he’s got insurance, he probably gets treatment in the US in a reasonable amount of time with good customer service.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Lou_BC and heavy handle, my BIL actually uses the healthcare he and my sister have purchased here in the US, for the past decades they’ve been married.

            I don’t know all the details but I believe they are still disease-free, Washington State health-nuts with an active lifestyle. Annual checkups so far.

            And I believe when my sister gets to be 65 and on Medicare Part A, B and D, he also gets to be on Medicare as long as he pays the $115 a month out of his own pocket for Part A & B.

            But I do agree, it would be ill-advised for him to give up his Canadian citizenship because all his money-making properties are in Canada, and he is taxed heavily for that privilege.

            And….if all else should fail, he always has that “free” Canadian healthcare for the two of them, and a place to live in Canada, should the US economy experience total chaos and collapse.

            danio3834, I believe Virginia Mason’s is the medical care facility to where they go for checkups and labs. But I haven’t asked them yet how O’b*m* care has affected them or their premiums. Obviously, at age 60 it is unlikely that my sister will need birth control pills, pre-natal care or pregnancy coverage. And he has been shooting blanks since he came of age.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        A gift from the government to tire retailers. God, it was impossible to get snow tires anywhere in the country at a reasonable cost, if you could at all, the year they instituted that.

  • avatar
    Joss

    No French Canadian term is quebecker. France is appalled at the dialect & accent. I heard parisian call it souffle merde. Quebec is very corrupt the First Nations don’t trust.. Neither group cares for Canadian. Strange but true. An obsolete monachy keeps them entwined.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Joss – First Nations have a right to be distrustful. That is a different kettle of fish than Quebec politics.

      Québécois is the term more likely to be used by French Quebec.

      All you need is a Nazi reference and we all can call it a night.

  • avatar
    Broo

    As if we needed another tax. A few weeks ago, unleaded was $1.38 per LITRE. That’s $5.22 per US gallon. That’s enough to force us in subcompacts. Right now, in some places in the US, the price is just under $2 per gallon while we are still at $4.30

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Taxes indeed. Most Canadians think it’s the oil companies ripping us off causing the high prices. Most fail to realize the variety of taxes makes up be bulk of the difference.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Right, you’re one of the largest oil producers on earth, why would your gas be so much more?… TAXES!

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        With the recent resurfacing of the discussion to raise gas taxes in the US to help fund our crumbling transportation infrastructure, I have to ask: where does all the money raised from the high fuel taxes in Canada go?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “With the recent resurfacing of the discussion to raise gas taxes in the US to help fund our crumbling transportation infrastructure”

          Well, I hope the Republicans don’t raise the taxes for the next two years.

          Harry Reid recently said that the Democrats would wage even more obstruction to the newly-elected Republican majorities, so we should enjoy another “do-nothing” Congress for the next two years.

          That sure makes “”right now” a great time to buy cars, houses, motorcycles, whatever.

          Easy money. No political interference.

          Life is good!

  • avatar
    calgarytek

    @mikey: So “Calgarytek” how’s that 65 dollar a barrel oil working for you..?

    It’ll just work out just fine. We got our ducks in a row when it was as low as $30. That was under Ralph Klein. He had his flaws, and had to make some hard choices, but Alberta did pay off it’s provincial deficit in 2004. I believe it was the realization that interest to service debt meant less money for social programs/infrastructure/health care.

    Since then, things have worsened. But there are nowhere near as bad as they are in QC/ON. Based on it’s track record, Alberta does have the will and commitment to see things through. It’s something that both QC/Ontario lack.

    It’s amazing how many parallels there are between the ‘mentality of QC/ON’ and Steven Lang’s TTAC articles about the deadbeats he comes across in his line of business. Ontarians/Quebecers like to point out that Alberta is rich because it has oil. Alberta was rich before oil made serious money for the province. Rich in the willingness and commitment to tackle it’s own problems and succeed.

    In terms of QC and it’s unique culture/separation issue, Western Canadians see it as extortion. Most of us want QC to leave, so the money will stay with us.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • chuckrs: Elon is PO’ed at Jeff B’s rent-seeking lawfare in the billionaires space race. So he decided to...
  • dal20402: I listen mostly to classical music (having a ~20k track collection) but occasionally to almost any other...
  • C5 is Alive: My inner Darwinist says kudos to any manufacturer – U.S., German, Korean, Japanese, even ChinCom...
  • Daniel J: The one thing I just don’t understand that hasn’t improved is satellite radio quality. It is...
  • theflyersfan: D’oh! My bad. I remember in other VWs, it was a Fender system. I think the GTI had more speakers...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber