Business
Carney says as PM he would replace the Carbon Tax with something ‘more effective’
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Carney stumbles out the gate on carbon taxes
Prime minister hopeful Mark Carney is supposed to be the economic messiah sent to save the Liberals from the depths of polling purgatory.
But right out the gate, Carney showed he doesn’t have an answer to the most important question:
Will he keep the carbon tax?
Carney should have seen that question coming. His campaign leaked to the media that he would scrap the carbon tax. But when reporters asked him that question at his campaign kickoff in Edmonton, he went wonky and wobbly.
It should have been a yes or no answer. Instead, Carney served up an unappetizing word salad.
“If you are going to take out the carbon tax, we should replace it with something that is at least, if not more, effective,” Carney said. “Perception may be that it takes out more than the rebate provides, but reality is different, and Canadians will miss that money.”
Carney’s stance on the carbon tax is clear as mud and it’s bad for two key reasons.
First: he’d replace the carbon tax with something more “effective.”
The carbon tax has been very effective at sucking a lot of money out of the wallets of Canadians. And the carbon tax has been ineffective at hitting the government’s own emissions targets.
The carbon tax is an expensive failure.
Second: Carney parrots the insulting Trudeau government narrative that the carbon tax is all a “perception” problem.
The message is Canadians are too stupid to appreciate the genius of the carbon tax, and if the government could change the perception of the masses, the carbon tax would be just fine.
Worse for Carney, his answer was an assault on his own brand.
Carney’s the guy who is supposed to have his homework done. Instead, he shrugged at the obvious question, saying he’d release a “comprehensive” plan later.
In other words: just trust him.
But here’s the thing: Carney should have had an answer yesterday and taxpayers have trust issues.
When the Liberals won the 2015 election, their platform was sparse on details about their future signature policy. The carbon tax was buried on page 39 of their platform as “a price on carbon.”
The Liberal government imposed a carbon tax in 2019 misleading Canadians, saying the tax would stop at 11 cents per litre of gasoline in 2022.
“The commitment was to go up to 2022,” then environment minister Catherine McKenna said, shortly before the 2019 federal election. “There was no intention to go up beyond that, there’s no secret agenda.”
After the election, the Trudeau government announced it would keep cranking up the carbon tax every year until it cost 37 cents per litre in 2030. Filling up a minivan at that rate would cost nearly $30 extra in just the carbon tax.
The current Liberal government still won’t rule out future carbon tax hikes.
The government also claims most families get more back in rebates than they pay in the carbon tax, despite the Parliamentary Budget Officer issuing three reports confirming the carbon tax costs Canadians.
The carbon tax will cost the average family up to $399 this year, even with the rebates factored in, according to the PBO.
Liberal leadership hopefuls who want to earn trust with taxpayers must push the Trudeau cabinet to scrap the carbon tax immediately.
The next Liberal leader faces a daunting timeline.
When Parliament comes back on March 24, there will be a throne speech, then likely a flurry of confidence motions. This could bring down the government and trigger an election.
On April 1, the government is set to hike the carbon tax.
Does Carney want to hike the carbon tax during the first week of his election campaign?
If Carney is as savvy as we’ve been told, then his answer should be a loud “no.”
To prove to Canadians he’s opposed to the carbon tax, Carney must call on the Trudeau cabinet to scrap it right now.
Automotive
Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles
From the Fraser Institute
By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari
According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”
And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.
So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.
But is that true?
Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.
Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.
Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.
However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.
Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.
So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.
Business
Canada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’
From LifeSiteNews
Of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s fleet of 1,200 drones, 79% pose national security risks due to them being made in China
Canada’s top police force spent millions on now near-useless and compromised security drones, all because they were made in China, a nation firmly controlled by the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) government.
An internal report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Canada’s Senate national security committee revealed that $34 million in taxpayer money was spent on a fleet of 973 Chinese-made drones.
Replacement drones are more than twice the cost of the Chinese-made ones between $31,000 and $35,000 per unit. In total, the RCMP has about 1,228 drones, meaning that 79 percent of its drone fleet poses national security risks due to them being made in China.
The RCMP said that Chinese suppliers are “currently identified as high security risks primarily due to their country of origin, data handling practices, supply chain integrity and potential vulnerability.”
In 2023, the RCMP put out a directive that restricted the use of the made-in-China drones, putting them on duty for “non-sensitive operations” only, however, with added extra steps for “offline data storage and processing.”
The report noted that the “Drones identified as having a high security risk are prohibited from use in emergency response team activities involving sensitive tactics or protected locations, VIP protective policing operations, or border integrity operations or investigations conducted in collaboration with U.S. federal agencies.”
The RCMP earlier this year said it was increasing its use of drones for border security.
Senator Claude Carignan had questioned the RCMP about what kind of precautions it uses in contract procurement.
“Can you reassure us about how national security considerations are taken into account in procurement, especially since tens of billions of dollars have been announced for procurement?” he asked.
“I want to make sure national security considerations are taken into account.”
The use of the drones by Canada’s top police force is puzzling, considering it has previously raised awareness of Communist Chinese interference in Canada.
Indeed, as reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier in the year, an RCMP internal briefing note warned that agents of the CCP are targeting Canadian universities to intimidate them and, in some instances, challenge them on their “political positions.”
The final report from the Foreign Interference Commission concluded that operatives from China may have helped elect a handful of MPs in both the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. It also concluded that China was the primary foreign interference threat to Canada.
Chinese influence in Canadian politics is unsurprising for many, especially given former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s past admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Canadian senator appointed by Trudeau told Chinese officials directly that their nation is a “partner, not a rival.”
China has been accused of direct election meddling in Canada, as reported by LifeSiteNews.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, an exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Carney and Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to China and the World Economic Forum. Despite Carney’s later claims that China poses a threat to Canada, he said in 2016 the Communist Chinese regime’s “perspective” on things is “one of its many strengths.”
-
Bruce Dowbiggin8 hours agoWayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
-
espionage11 hours agoWestern Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
-
Agriculture7 hours agoCanada’s air quality among the best in the world
-
Business9 hours agoCanada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’
-
Economy10 hours agoAffordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada
-
Fraser Institute2 days agoClaims about ‘unmarked graves’ don’t withstand scrutiny
-
National2 days agoCanada’s free speech record is cracking under pressure
-
Energy2 days agoMeet REEF — the massive new export engine Canadians have never heard of


