Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Justin Trudeau is considering stepping down amid cabinet turmoil, reports indicate

Published

2 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

According to CTV News, a source said that Trudeau is looking at his ‘options’ following the shock resignation of Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chyrstia Freeland this morning.

Reports are circulating that suggest Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is considering stepping down as leader after a disastrous day which saw his most high-profile minister resign citing him as the main reason. 

According to CTV News, a source said that Trudeau is looking at his “options” following the shock resignation of Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chyrstia Freeland this morning.

Freeland today announced her resignation from the Liberal cabinet, revealing that she did so after Trudeau asked her to step down as finance minister last Friday and move into a different position. 

Her public resignation letter blasted Trudeau’s economic direction and apparent lack of wanting to work as a team player with the nation’s premiers.  

To make matters worse for Trudeau, just hours after Freeland’s resignation, leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) Jagmeet Singh, whose party has been propping up the Liberal minority government, called on the prime minister to resign.

“We are calling for Justin Trudeau’s resignation,” said Singh to reporters in French and later in English.  

Singh claimed that should Trudeau not step down voluntarily, he would consider voting non-confidence, saying, “all tools are on the table.” 

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada Pierre Poilievre demanded that Trudeau return to the House of Commons at once so a vote of confidence could be held “tonight.” 

Trudeau has seen many ministers resign in recent months as the Liberal Party’s polling continues to trend downward. The most recent polls show a Conservative government under Poilievre would win a super majority were an election held today. 

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

Energy

Next federal government should close widening gap between Canadian and U.S. energy policy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

After accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.

At a recent energy conference in Houston, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the Trump administration will end the Biden administration’s “irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens.” He added that “Natural gas is responsible for 43 per cent of U.S. electricity production,” and beyond the obvious scale and cost problems, there’s “simply no physical way that wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas.”

In other words, as a federal election looms, once again the United States is diverging from Canada when it comes to energy policy.

Indeed, wind power is particularly unattractive to Wright because of its “incredibly high prices,” “incredibly huge investment” and “large footprint on the local communities,” which make it unattractive to people living nearby. Globally, Wright observes, “Natural gas currently supplies 25 per cent of raw energy globally, before it is converted into electricity or some other use. Wind and solar only supply about 3 per cent.”

And he’s right. Renewables are likely unable, physically or economically, to replace natural gas power production to meet current or future needs for affordable, abundant and reliable energy.

In a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, for example, we observed that meeting Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 using only wind power (with natural gas discouraged under current Canadian climate policies) would require the construction of approximately 575 wind-power installations, each the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupré wind farm, over 25 years. However, with a construction timeline of two years per project, this would equate to 1,150 construction years. This would also require more than one million hectares of land—an area nearly 14.5 times the size of Calgary.

Solar power did not fare much better. According to the study, to meet Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 with solar-power generation would require the construction of 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project. At a two-year construction time per facility, this adds up to 1,680 construction years to accomplish.

And at what cost? While proponents often claim that wind and solar sources are cheaper than fossil fuels, they ignore the costs of maintaining backup power to counter the unreliability of wind and solar power generation. A recent study published in Energy, a peer-reviewed energy and engineering journal, found that—after accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.

The outlook for Canada’s switch to renewables is also dire. TD Bank estimated that replacing existing gas generators with renewables (such as solar and wind) in Ontario could increase average electricity costs by 20 per cent by 2035 (compared to 2021 costs). In Alberta, electricity prices would increase by up to 66 per cent by 2035 compared to a scenario without changes.

Under Canada’s current greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory regime, natural gas is heavily disfavoured as a potential fuel for electricity production. The Trudeau government’s Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) would begin curtailing the use of natural gas beginning in 2035, leading largely to a cessation of natural gas power generation by 2050. Under CER and Ottawa’s “net-zero 2050” GHG emission framework, Canada will be wedded to a quixotic mission to displace affordable reliable natural gas power-generation with expensive unreliable renewables that are likely unable to meet expected future electricity demand.

With a federal election looming, Canada’s policymakers should pay attention to new U.S. energy policy on natural gas, and pull back from our headlong rush into renewable power. To avoid calamity, the next federal government should scrap the Trudeau-era CER and reconsider the entire “net-zero 2050” agenda.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Carbon Tax

Prime Minister Mark Carney reduces carbon tax to zero

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre warned, ‘Carbon Tax Carney is pausing the carbon tax until after the election when he no longer needs your vote but still needs your money.’

Mark Carney, as his first move as Prime Minister of Canada, has dropped the infamous carbon tax.  

Moments after his March 14 swearing in, Prime Minister Carney signed legislation to reduce the consumer carbon tax rate on Canadians to zero, essentially removing it from April 1. 

“This will make a difference to hard-pressed Canadians, but it is part of a much bigger set of measures that this government is taking to ensure that we fight against climate change, that our companies are competitive, and the country moves forward,” Carney told media in the cabinet meeting room. 

“Based on the discussion we’ve had and consistent with a promise that I made, and others supported, during the [Liberal Party] leadership campaign, we will be eliminating the Canada fuel charge, the consumer fuel charge, immediately,” he continued.  

However, it is important to note that Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced it to zero. This means it could come back at any time.  

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.  

First implemented in 2019, the carbon tax was advertised as a way to reduce emissions. However, Liberals have since admitted that the carbon tax has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by only one percent. 

The tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.  

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre responded to Carney’s move by saying, “Carbon Tax Carney is pausing the carbon tax until after the election when he no longer needs your vote but still needs your money.”  

“He’s flip-flopping on his beliefs to trick Canadians into a 4th Liberal government,” he stated on an X post. “If Carney wins, Canada loses.”  

 

Indeed, Carney’s decision also appears to be contrary to his own ideology, as he recently argued that the carbon tax was too low. He also rebuked Trudeau for exempting home heating oil from the carbon tax in 2023.  

Furthermore, although Carney has assured Canadians that while he is no longer on the board of the World Economic Forum, he has been a longtime supporter of the globalist agenda, including  the United Nations’ energy regulations. In January 2023, he attended the World Economic Forum’s meeting in Davos, Switzerland. 

Carney uses his social media to advocate for achieving net-zero energy goals. 

“The net-zero revolution is becoming a driver of country competitiveness, job creation & growth,” he posted on X earlier in November. “In the future, great powers will be green powers — and Canada can be a great power.” 

Continue Reading

Trending

X