Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Trudeau gov’t considers ban on portable electric heaters while Canadians struggle to afford to stay warm

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Health Canada has opened a 90-day consultation period titled “Comment period for the danger to human health or safety assessment for portable electric heaters” for stakeholders as well as the public to give digital comments via email on their opinions if the heaters should be banned.

Canadian officials are looking for sufficient “information” from a variety of stakeholders on the use of popular portable electric heaters over “safety” issues while attempting to ban the devices despite the fact the government has made heating homes more expensive due to a punitive carbon tax.

Health Canada, with a notice posted on its website, has now added portable electric heaters as a hazardous consumer product because they can “pose a danger to human health or safety.”

Going one step further, Health Canada has opened a 90-day consultation period titled “Comment period for the danger to human health or safety assessment for portable electric heaters” for stakeholders as well as the public to give digital comments via email on their opinions if the heaters should be banned.

“Health Canada will consider these comments when making a determination on whether there is a danger to human health or safety posed by these products,” the agency noted.

According to Health Canada, if it cannot gather enough evidence that compact electric heaters do indeed pose a safety risk, the devices will not be banned.

The consultation period opened on February 19 and will close on May 19.

The Trudeau government is trying to force net-zero regulations on all Canadian provinces, notably on electricity generation, as early as 2035. His government has also refused to extend a carbon tax exemption on heating fuels to all provinces, allowing only Atlantic provinces this benefit.

According to Statistics Canada, “Energy Poverty,” which could be described as one not being able to “maintain healthy indoor temperatures” throughout the year, is an issue nationwide. Due to the carbon tax imposed by the Trudeau government making everything more expensive, many Canadians are struggling to afford basics like electricity, water, and, most important for winter weather, natural gas for furnaces.

Indeed, a recent report released by McGill University shows that about one-in-five Canadian households face some form of “energy poverty” due to high utility costs.

The irony of the Statistics Canada report is that, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Trudeau’s carbon tax is costing Canadians hundreds of dollars annually, as government rebates are not enough to compensate for high fuel costs.

Franco Terrazzano, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, told LifeSiteNews last month that “If the government wanted to make all areas of life more affordable, the government should leave more money in people’s pockets and cut taxes.”

“Trudeau should completely scrap his carbon tax,” he added.

The electric heaters being investigated include portable baseboard heaters, fan-driven heaters, electric-only heaters, and liquid-filled radiator-style heaters. Health Canada claims that the heaters can cause a fire hazard due to faulty wiring and can overheat.

It should be noted that in many countries such as Mexico portable electric heaters are the norm. While they can pose fire hazards, most modern heaters incorporate automatic shutdowns should the devices be knocked over.

Heaters that are permanently connected are not under review.

Health Canada says that there have been 252 reported incidents, with five deaths and 10 injuries, from 2011 to 2023.

As for Trudeau’s carbon tax, it has made everything more expensive. A report from September 5, 2023, by Statistics Canada shows food prices are rising faster than headline inflation at a rate of between 10% and 18% per year.

According to a recent Statistics Canada survey of supermarket prices, Canadians are paying 12% more for carrots, 14% more for hamburger (ground meat), and 27% more for baby formula.

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