Economy
Canada is not a serious country… Danielle Smith

From Danielle Smith
I read an infographic that said Canada has bought $13 billion worth of petroleum products from Russia since 2000 – we buy from them at a rate of $550 million a year. What the hell are we doing?
The situation for Ukraine looks very grave indeed. Most commentators thought Vladimir Putin was going to “liberate” the two Russia friendly break off republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. What a surprise to the world to find Russian soldiers in Kyiv among other incursions.
It is pretty clear the Russian leader intends to take all of Ukraine.
But we also must not be naïve about Putin’s aspirations. A Polish friend of mine – who remembers watching Russian tanks roll into her town outside her street when she was seven years old – is under no illusions about how far Putin intends to go.
She fully expects Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Kazakhstan and possibly Moldova to be next. She believes Putin wants to assemble the Soviet Union 2.0, with the ultimate aim of controlling the energy supply to the rest of the world.
So how does this play out?
Just like you I’ve been trying to sort through the conflicting media coverage to find out what is really going on. If indeed there are Ukraine substates that genuinely want to be independent, I don’t have a particular problem with that. As I said in a Locals post, post WWII the powers that be made a lot of blunders redrawing the map of Europe and the Middle East, cramming people together under a national flag even if they hated each other, so perhaps some aspirations for independence are legitimate. But it’s clear that Putin’s aspiration goes far beyond Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. It appears now that he wants the whole thing. But why?
First off, though it’s sad to say, there hasn’t been much honest reporting about Ukraine and Russia starting in the Trump years so almost everything you read will be through the lens of people who hate Trump (who clearly understood Putin’s strength and saw no need to antagonize him) and Biden (whose family had strange dealings in Ukraine no one wants to talk about).
In addition there is so much propaganda floating around the web I’d be reluctant to retweet any stories of “bravery” unless they’ve been verified. Here’s a good summary of the lies so far: The Ghost of Kiev, the woman with the sunflower seeds, footage of things being shot down or blown up – so far most of these stories are outright falsehoods or images from video games or prior conflicts. The “Russian Warship Go Fuck Yourself” holdouts was partly true: yes they said it, but they didn’t die in a missile attack. They were all apprehended and taken alive.
So know that you have to read everything knowing that the writer is trying to manipulate you. I’m just trying to figure out what is actually going on. It’s not easy.
To that end…
The mainstream view as reported on BBC, is that Russia feels threatened by a modern Ukraine and irrationally believes it has been taken over by extremists and Nazis. I guess calling one’s political opponents “Nazis” is the new all-purpose smear being used by Russian Presidents and Canadian Prime Ministers alike to justify war measures. In any case, this analysis left me unsatisfied as it seemed a bit shallow and one-sided like so much of MSM these days.
Social media isn’t doing much better, and the commentariat seems to think this is the time to practice their best pop culture zingers. It’s kind of humiliating to read this piece that calls out the Harry Potter references, the self-care links and the demands to “deplatform” Russia: “If the West saw Ukraine and its cause as truly important, something worth paying a price to assist, they would sanction Russia’s energy sector. But they do not (even the Globalist American Empire must sometimes face reality). So instead, we get a parade of symbolic sanctions, passive-aggressive gestures of anger and hostility. In fact, the tactics the GAE uses against Russia — social ostracisim, deplatforming, and performative public condemnation — are the same feminine tools that it uses domestically to ruins the lives of people who use a politically incorrect word or donate to the wrong protest.” Ouch.
Here’s a video from a podcaster imbedded in Kyiv who says openly, “you’ll probably think I’m a Russian stooge” so he may indeed be a Russian stooge, but he explains why he thinks Russia (so far) has been restrained in its attack. He believes Ukrainians are fleeing because Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is endangering them, by putting Kalashnikovs in the hands of untrained civilians who are going to be killed when confronted by professional Russian soldiers, and mandating military service for every man aged 18 to 60. He does not believe the Russians intend to cause mass casualties or destruction, but that they will kill if someone is pointing a gun at them, which will allow more reports depicting Putin’s viciousness.
He also explains how important Kyiv is to the Russian foundational story. As far as Putin is concerned, Ukraine is Russia, and he expected to be treated as a liberator when he arrived. He also outlined the different military tactics of Russia to explain why the West is saying that Russia is losing. When the US enters a country they do scorched earth and blow everything up – roads, bridges, electrical grids, water plants and so on. The fact that Putin is not doing that is being perceived as weakness. But if Putin wants Ukraine to be part of Russia permanently, it would make no sense to destroy everything. That doesn’t engender good feelings. Putin wants a puppet regime in Ukraine friendly to Russia’s interests – he doesn’t want to raze the joint or blow it smithereens.
Finally, this piece helped put a lot into perspective for me. “Ukraine’s Deadly Gamble” by Lee Smith has the ring of truth about it. He depicts it thus: “…(T)he Ukrainians made a geopolitical blunder that statesmen will study for years to come: A buffer state had staked its future on a distant power that had simply seen it as an instrument to annoy its powerful neighbor with no attachment to any larger strategic concept that it was willing to support.” They were a pawn in the game to help discredit Trump with the Russian collusion story, then when Trump started poking around to find out what the Bidens were up to in Ukraine, they played a willing role to aid his impeachment. Now they find out the Americans just aren’t that into them after all.
In the end, mid-size powers sleeping next to giants have to realize that their continued ability to remain independent is measured by whether they are perceived as antagonistic to the giant’s interests. If the situation was reversed – if Canada started cozying up to Russia and helping to sabotage US presidents to curry favour with Russia – I don’t think it would go well for us either. Maybe not full scale invasion, but the Americans hold life or death power over our economy so it wouldn’t be a wise move. Sad that regular citizens become the collateral damage in the decisions of their elected leaders. But that’s why elections matter.
If Canada was a serious grown-up country with a serious grown-up leader we’d be able to say “we can help” without being laughed off the world stage. We can help, in a very practical way. We can help wean the world off Russian oil and natural gas. We could ask Quebec to stop thinking only about itself for a change and reverse its announced ban on oil and natural gas extraction. Trudeau could declare multiple projects in the global interest and work with First Nations partners to complete Transmountain Pipeline and build Northern Gateway, work with Biden to build Keystone XL and with the provinces of QB and NB to build Energy East. He would use his powers under the Constitution to tell Quebec they can not block LNG Export from Saguenay, and he’d post a sentry of protectors for Coastal Gas Link to make sure it gets completed too.But look at this silliness: “despite the fact that 18 LNG export terminals have been proposed in Canada over the years, and 24 long-term LNG export licenses have been granted since 2011, a grand total of zero have been built.” We have failed the world with Trudeau’s anti-carbon-dioxide obsession. Let’s not forget it.
Canada is key to energy security and affordability for North America and our European allies, and we could hit Russia where it hurts. If we wanted to be a meaningful player on the international stage we would embrace it.
Instead we have a federal Environment Minister who made his name scaling the CN Tower and Ralph Klein’s house to oppose fossil fuels, and we’ve joined the Build Back Better brigade pretending the world can survive on wind turbines and solar panels alone.
Canada is not a serious place and our friends in Eastern Europe are now paying the price for it. Such a tragedy.
For more from Daniel Smith
|
|
|
|
|
Carbon Tax
Back Door Carbon Tax: Goal Of Climate Lawfare Movement To Drive Up Price Of Energy

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The energy sector has long been a lightning rod for policy battles, but few moments crystallize the tension between environmental activism and economic reality quite like David Bookbinder’s recent admission. A veteran litigator who’s spent years spearheading lawsuits against major oil companies on behalf of Colorado municipalities — including Boulder — Bookbinder let the cat out of the bag during a recent Federalist Society panel.
In an all-too-rare acknowledgement of the lawfare campaign’s real goal, Bookbinder admitted that he views the lawsuits mainly as a proxy for a carbon tax. In other words, the winning or losing of any of the cases is irrelevant; in Bookbinder’s view, the process becomes the punishment as companies and ultimately consumers pay the price for using oil and gas and the industry’s refined products.
“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. … [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The cynicism is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
On one hand, the fact that winning is irrelevant to the plaintiff firms who bring the cases has become obvious over the last two years as case after case has been dismissed by judges in at least ten separate jurisdictions. The fact that almost every case has been dismissed on the same legal grounds only serves to illustrate that reality.
Bookbinder’s frank admission lands with particular force at a pivotal juncture. In late September, the Department of Justice, along with 26 state attorneys general and more than 100 members of Congress, urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in one of the few remaining active cases in this lawfare effort, in Boulder, Colorado.
Their briefs contend that allowing these suits to proceed unchecked would “upend the constitutional balance” between federal and state authority, potentially “bankrupt[ing] the U.S. energy sector” by empowering local courts to override national energy policy.
For the companies named in the suits, these cases represent not just a tiresome form of legal Kabuki Theater, but a financial and time sink that cuts profits and inhibits capital investments in more productive enterprises. You know, like producing oil and gas to meet America’s ravenous energy needs in an age of explosive artificial intelligence growth.
“I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those, and I don’t think anyone on this panel would [dis]agree Congress is likely to take on climate change anytime soon—so this is a rather convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax,” Bookbinder elaborated in his panel discussion.
John Yoo, the eminent UC Berkeley law professor and former Bush-era official, didn’t hold back in his analysis for National Review. He described the lawfare campaign as a “backdoor” assault on the energy industry, circumventing the federal government’s established role in environmental regulation.
“There are a variety of cities and states that don’t agree with the federal government, and they would like to see the energy companies taxed,” Yoo explained. “Some of them probably like to see them go out of business. Since they can’t persuade through the normal political process of elections and legislation like the rest of the country, they’re using this back door,” he added.
What we see in action here is the fact that, although the climate alarm industry that is largely funded by an array of dark money NGOs and billionaire foundations finds itself on the defensive amid the aggressive policy actions of the Trump 47 administration, it is far from dead. Like the Democrat party in which they play an integral role, the alarmists are fighting the battle in their last bastion of power: The courts.
As long as there are city and county officials willing to play the role of plaintiffs in this long running Kabuki dance, and a Supreme Court unwilling to intercede, no one should doubt that this stealth carbon tax lawfare effort will keep marching right along.
Business
Emission regulations harm Canadians in exchange for no environmental benefit

From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
The PBO estimates that the CFR will decrease Canada’s economic output by up to 0.3 per cent—or approximately $9.0 billion—in 2030. For context, that’s more than the entire output of Prince Edward Island in 2024, so the effects are roughly equivalent to wiping out the economy of a whole province.
The Carney government recently announced changes to the Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR), signalling stricter carbon content rules for gasoline and diesel—though few details were provided. While the prime minister expressed confidence that the changes will strengthen the Canadian economy, in reality, the CFR is designed to increase fuel prices in exchange for negligible environmental benefits. If the government is serious about prioritizing the wellbeing of Canadians, it shouldn’t tinker with the CFR—it should eliminate it.
The CFR, which came into effect in July 2023, aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by requiring a gradual reduction in the carbon content of gasoline and diesel. By 2030, fuels must contain 15 per cent fewer GHG per unit of energy than in 2016. Those who don’t meet the target must buy compliance credits, which raises their costs. Ultimately, these costs are all passed on to Canadians at the pump.
According to a recent study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the CFR is expected to increase fuel prices by up to 17 cents per litre for gasoline and 16 cents for diesel by 2030. These costs will be added on top of already high, policy-driven fuel costs. In 2023, for example, the average price of gasoline in Canada was 157.3 Canadian cents per litre, compared to just 129.4 cents per litre in the United States—a 21 per cent difference, mainly the result of fuel taxes in Canada.
As fuel prices rise due to the CFR, the costs of running tractors, powering machinery, and producing and transporting goods and services will all increase, setting off ripple effects across our economy. The PBO estimates that the CFR will decrease Canada’s economic output by up to 0.3 per cent—or approximately $9.0 billion—in 2030. For context, that’s more than the entire output of Prince Edward Island in 2024, so the effects are roughly equivalent to wiping out the economy of a whole province.
Of course, increases in fuel prices also mean more pressure to household budgets. The PBO estimates that in 2030, the average Canadian household will incur $573 in additional costs because of the changes to the CFR, and lower-income households will bear a disproportionately larger burden because they spend more of their budget on energy.
The policy’s uneven impact across provinces is particularly significant for lower-income regions. For example, households in Nova Scotia and P.E.I.—two of the provinces with the lowest median household incomes—are expected to bear average annual costs of $635 and $569, respectively. In contrast, families in Ontario and British Columbia—two of the provinces with higher median household incomes—will pay less, $495 and $384 per year, respectively. Simply put, the CFR imposes more costs on those who make less.
To make matters worse, the expected environmental benefits of the CFR are negligible. Even if it delivers its full projected reduction of 26 million tonnes of GHG emissions by 2030, that represents only “two weeks of greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian economy,” according to the federal government.
Given that GHG emissions cross all borders regardless of where they originate, in a broader perspective, that reduction represents just 0.04 per cent of projected global emissions by 2030. So, Canadians are being asked to pay a material price for a measure that will have virtually no environmental impact.
Toughening regulations on carbon content for gas and diesel won’t benefit Canadians, in fact, it will do the opposite. The CFR places a real financial burden on Canadian households while delivering no meaningful environmental benefit. When a policy’s costs vastly outweigh its benefits, the answer isn’t to adjust it, it’s to scrap it.

Julio Mejía
-
Health2 days ago
New report warns WHO health rules erode Canada’s democracy and Charter rights
-
Courageous Discourse1 day ago
No Exit Wound – EITHER there was a very public “miracle” OR Charlie Kirk’s murder is not as it appears
-
Business1 day ago
Emission regulations harm Canadians in exchange for no environmental benefit
-
Business1 day ago
Quebecers want feds to focus on illegal gun smuggling not gun confiscation
-
Alberta1 day ago
Petition threatens independent school funding in Alberta
-
Energy2 days ago
Minus Forty and the Myth of Easy Energy
-
National1 day ago
Politically Connected Canadian Weed Sellers Push Back in B.C. Court, Seek Distance from Convicted Heroin Trafficker
-
Business23 hours ago
Canada Revenue Agency found a way to hit “Worse Than Rock Bottom”