Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Federal government ratchets up ‘climate’ propaganda

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

In the face of resistance from provinces to its anti-fossil fuel agenda, and having endured several setbacks in the federal courts over some of its signature environmental policies, the Trudeau government has rolled out a new propaganda campaign to build greater support for its climate and energy policies.

According to the government’s new “Raising the Bar” campaign, manmade climate change has quickly evolved from a future threat to a real-time crisis where we’re experiencing more “wildfires, floods, and droughts” that affect “our economy, our infrastructure, our health, and our overall well-being.”

But is this true? Our government, which regularly claims to follow evidence-based policy, doesn’t provide much evidence to back up these claims—probably because there isn’t a lot of strong evidence that we’re seeing dramatic changes in extreme weather events.

Take wildfires, for example. In reality, wildfires in Canada have been declining in number, extent and severity over the last four decades, even as the overall climate has warmed (which it has, undeniably). More broadly, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it’s only “likely” that heavy rainfall events have increased in North America since 1950, and the IPCC only has “medium confidence” that droughts have worsened since 1950.

Nonetheless, despite a relative paucity of data indicating worsening extreme weather events in Canada, we must “Raise the Bar” and “tackle the climate crisis” by essentially doing less of just about everything Canadians want to do.

The Trudeau government’s new campaign includes a slick video showing how Canadians are “Stepping Up” to the government’s ideas of the good life. We meet Charles, who now takes the bus twice a week, and Megan, who swapped her trusty gas-powered leaf blower for an electric one. Jade and Amina have taken government subsidies to swap out their reliable gas heating system for an electric heat pump. And the Nguyen family now dries its clothes on clotheslines. Of course, the video does not reveal that some of these virtuous acts will be fairly horrible in the cold winters that grip most of the country. One wonders how many tax dollars went to fund this little paean to Canadians who follow government dictates. (Interestingly, when the government posted the video on YouTube, it disabled the comments so Canadians can’t, well, comment.)

But the propaganda doesn’t stop with gentle nudging. On the website, Canadians are told to use less energy, less water, buy less new clothing, travel less, and eat less meat while eating more plant matter (ironically, the government’s efforts to reduce nitrogen fertilizer will make plant matter more expensive and less available).

One might dismiss the latest climate propaganda campaign as just another government Public Service Announcement intended to help people live more climate-healthy and mindful lives, but that would be a mistake. Because this propaganda campaign doesn’t simply encourage people to get more exercise or eat less junk food, it seeks to create a public mindset that will convince Canadians to accept a raft of coercive regulations—such as the hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions or restrictions on fuel tankers and pipelines—which prevent the development of oil and gas resources across Western Canada and restrict the economy.

Rather than making our lives better, as the “Stepping Up” video suggests, the coercive regulatory regime that underpins these new ways of living will, in fact, leave Canadians less prosperous and force them to pay more for less of just about everything.

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

Business

Higher Capital Gains Taxes cap off a loser federal budget

Published on

From Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Even former Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau told the Financial Post the capital gains tax increase would be “very troubling for many investors.” He added, “I don’t think there was enough effort in this budget to reduce spending, to create that appropriate direction for the economy.”

New taxes on capital gains mean more capital pains for Canadians as they endure another tax-grabbing, heavy-spending federal deficit budget.

Going forward, the inclusion rate increases to 66 per cent, up from 50 per cent, on capital gains above $250,000 for people and on all capital gains for corporations and trusts. The change will affect 307,000 businesses and see Ottawa, according to probably optimistic projections, rake in an additional $19.4 billion over four years.

A wide chorus of voices have justifiably condemned this move. If an asset is sold for more than it was bought for, the government will claim two-thirds of the value because half is no longer enough.  It’s pure government greed.

If you were an investor or a young tech entrepreneur looking for somewhere to set up shop, would you choose Canada? And if you’re already that investor, how hard would you work to appreciate your assets when the government seizes much of the improvement?

Even before this budget, the OECD predicted Canada would have the lowest growth rates in per-person GDP up to 2060 of all its member countries.

In a speech in Halifax on March 26, Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers put the productivity problem this way: “You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘In emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass.”

What can Canadians bash now? Their heads against a wall?

Even former Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau told the Financial Post the capital gains tax increase would be “very troubling for many investors.” He added, “I don’t think there was enough effort in this budget to reduce spending, to create that appropriate direction for the economy.”

No kidding. Not since the first Prime Minister Trudeau (Pierre) have Canadians been able to count so reliably on deficit spending, higher expenditures, and more taxes.

Long ago, it seems now, when Justin Trudeau was not yet prime minister, he campaigned on “a modest short-term deficit” of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years and a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year.

His rationale was that low interest rates made it a rare opportunity to borrow and build infrastructure, all to encourage economic growth. Of course, the budget never balanced itself and Canada has lost $225 billion in foreign investment since 2016.

The deficits continue though the excuse of low interest rates is long gone. Despite higher carbon and capital gains taxes, this year’s deficit will match last year’s: $40 billion. Infrastructure seems less in view than an ever-expanding nanny state of taxpayer-funded dental care, child care, and pharmacare.

Of course, the Trudeau deficits were not as modest as advertised, and all-time federal debt has doubled to $1.2 trillion in less than a decade. Debt interest payments this coming fiscal year will be $54.1 billion, matching GST revenue and exceeding the $52 billion of transfers to the provinces for health care.

In 1970, columnist Lubor Zink quoted Pierre Trudeau as saying, “One has to be in the wheelhouse to see what shifts are taking place . . . The observer . . . on the deck . . . sees the horizon much in the same direction and doesn’t realize it but perhaps he will find himself disembarking at a different island than the one he thought he was sailing for.”

Like father, like son, Justin Trudeau has captained Canada to a deceptive and unwelcome destination. What started as Fantasy Island is becoming Davy Jones’ Locker.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s economy has stagnated despite Ottawa’s spin

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen, Milagros Palacios and Lawrence Schembri

Canada’s inflation-adjusted per-person annual economic growth rate (0.7 per cent) is meaningfully worse than the G7 average (1.0 per cent) over this same period. The gap with the U.S. (1.2 per cent) is even larger. Only Italy performed worse than Canada.

Growth in gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the economy annually, is one of the most frequently cited indicators of Canada’s economic performance. Journalists, politicians and analysts often compare various measures of Canada’s total GDP growth to other countries, or to Canada’s past performance, to assess the health of the economy and living standards. However, this statistic is misleading as a measure of living standards when population growth rates vary greatly across countries or over time.

Federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, for example, recently boasted that Canada had experienced the “strongest economic growth in the G7” in 2022. Although the Trudeau government often uses international comparisons on aggregate GDP growth as evidence of economic success, it’s not the first to do so. In 2015, then-prime minister Stephen Harper said Canada’s GDP growth was “head and shoulders above all our G7 partners over the long term.”

Unfortunately, such statements do more to obscure public understanding of Canada’s economic performance than enlighten it. In reality, aggregate GDP growth statistics are not driven by productivity improvements and do not reflect rising living standards. Instead, they’re primarily the result of differences in population and labour force growth. In other words, they aren’t primarily the result of Canadians becoming better at producing goods and services (i.e. productivity) and thus generating more income for their families. Instead, they primarily reflect the fact that there are simply more people working, which increases the total amount of goods and services produced but doesn’t necessarily translate into increased living standards.

Let’s look at the numbers. Canada’s annual average GDP growth (with no adjustment for population) from 2000 to 2023 was the second-highest in the G7 at 1.8 per cent, just behind the United States at 1.9 per cent. That sounds good, until you make a simple adjustment for population changes by comparing GDP per person. Then a completely different story emerges.

Canada’s inflation-adjusted per-person annual economic growth rate (0.7 per cent) is meaningfully worse than the G7 average (1.0 per cent) over this same period. The gap with the U.S. (1.2 per cent) is even larger. Only Italy performed worse than Canada.

Why the inversion of results from good to bad? Because Canada has had by far the fastest population growth rate in the G7, growing at an annualized rate of 1.1 per cent—more than twice the annual population growth rate of the G7 as a whole at 0.5 per cent. In aggregate, Canada’s population increased by 29.8 per cent during this time period compared to just 11.5 per cent in the entire G7.

Clearly, aggregate GDP growth is a poor tool for international comparisons. It’s also not a good way to assess changes in Canada’s performance over time because Canada’s rate of population growth has not been constant. Starting in 2016, sharply higher rates of immigration have led to a pronounced increase in population growth. This increase has effectively partially obscured historically weak economic growth per person over the same period.

Specifically, from 2015 to 2023, under the Trudeau government, inflation-adjusted per-person economic growth averaged just 0.3 per cent. For historical perspective, per-person economic growth was 0.8 per cent annually under Brian Mulroney, 2.4 per cent under Jean Chrétien and 2.0 per cent under Paul Martin.

Due to Canada’s sharp increase in population growth in recent years, aggregate GDP growth is a misleading indicator for comparing economic growth performance across countries or time periods. Canada is not leading the G7, or doing well in historical terms, when it comes to economic growth measures that make simple adjustments for our rapidly growing population. In reality, we’ve become a growth laggard and our living standards have largely stagnated for the better part of a decade.

Continue Reading

Trending

X