Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Natural gas bans are fuelling higher energy costs

Published

6 minute read

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Roslyn Kunin

Governments are pulling the plug on natural gas with no real backup plan in place and Canadians are paying the price

Banning natural gas and pushing electricity without enough supply is a recipe for soaring energy costs and blackouts. Politicians may forget the basics of economics, but supply and demand won’t go away.

When the supply of anything goes up, its price falls. Limit or decrease supply and the price rises. Demand works in the opposite direction—high demand drives up prices, and lower demand brings them down.

Like gravity, the law of supply and demand is always there, but many politicians behave as though it doesn’t exist. Nowhere is that clearer than in energy policy, where environmental goals are prioritized while economic realities are sidelined. The drive to eliminate energy-related emissions
in just a few years may sound noble, but it ignores practical limits, and Canadians are paying the price.

Take natural gas. It emits far less carbon than coal or oil. In Canada, most natural gas comes from Alberta and British Columbia, and it’s one of the country’s most affordable and secure energy sources. Despite this, several jurisdictions in B.C. are banning its use in new and renovated buildings—moves encouraged by federal emissions targets and climate incentives.

These policies may be well-intentioned, but they ignore a basic fact: people still need to heat their homes and cook their meals. Without gas, they’ll be forced to use electricity. But unlike gas, electricity is already in short supply and getting more expensive. Our current generating capacity can’t keep up with rising demand, and that’s before we even consider the added strain from electric vehicles, data centres and energy-hungry artificial intelligence.

British Columbia’s Site C dam, a multibillion-dollar hydroelectric project under construction on the Peace River, is expected to generate enough electricity for 450,000 homes when complete. But all of that power is already spoken for. There are no Site C-scale replacements on the horizon. Meanwhile, our distribution infrastructure can’t meet today’s needs, let alone tomorrow’s.

In one recent case, buildings planning to install EV chargers were told by B.C. Hydro, the Crown corporation responsible for electricity in B.C., that there wasn’t enough power available. Major housing developments have even been blocked due to limited electricity supply.

These constraints aren’t just technical—they’re already making it harder to build new housing. Canadians may accept higher costs for environmental gains, but pushing up both housing and energy bills risks crossing a line. Banning natural gas makes it harder to build and maintain affordable homes, directly undermining what governments claim to support. In homes forced to switch from gas to electricity, heating and hot water bills could quadruple. Reliability also drops. Builders are now being advised to install backup generators to handle expected power outages—ironically, those generators will often run on the very natural gas being banned.

We can no longer assume the government will keep the lights on. That’s a serious blow to Canadians’ standard of living.

Some argue these trade-offs are justified if they cut emissions. But even that goal is questionable. The gas we don’t burn here will simply be sold elsewhere—likely to countries still relying on coal, oil or even dung. Because emissions don’t respect borders, the global climate impact remains the same, or worse.

Of course, Canada could go further and stop producing natural gas altogether. Leave it all in the ground. But doing so would deliver a major blow to our economy and standard of living: something no elected government is likely to survive. Alternatively, Canada could export more of its low-cost, lower-emission natural gas to displace dirtier fuels abroad. That would reduce global emissions more effectively than restricting gas at home.

Canadians care about the environment. But we need smart, balanced policies—ones that use our resources wisely, not wastefully. We can pursue conservation and cleaner technologies while still recognizing that economic laws apply, even when they’re inconvenient.

It’s not about choosing between prosperity and the planet. It’s about realizing that ignoring the fundamentals—like supply and demand—comes at a cost most Canadians can’t afford.

Dr. Roslyn Kunin is a respected Canadian economist known for her extensive work in economic forecasting, public policy, and labour market analysis. She has held various prominent roles, including serving as the regional director for the federal government’s Department of Employment and Immigration in British Columbia and Yukon and as an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Kunin is also recognized for her contributions to economic development, particularly in Western Canada. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Business

Will Paramount turn the tide of legacy media and entertainment?

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Bill Flaig And Tom Carter

The recent leadership changes at Paramount Skydance suggest that the company may finally be ready to correct course after years of ideological drift, cultural activism posing as programming, and a pattern of self-inflicted financial and reputational damage.

Nowhere was this problem more visible than at CBS News, which for years operated as one of the most partisan and combative news organizations. Let’s be honest, CBS was the worst of an already left biased industry that stopped at nothing to censor conservatives. The network seemed committed to the idea that its viewers needed to be guided, corrected, or morally shaped by its editorial decisions.

This culminated in the CBS and 60 Minutes segment with Kamala Harris that was so heavily manipulated and so structurally misleading that it triggered widespread backlash and ultimately forced Paramount to settle a $16 million dispute with Donald Trump. That was not merely a legal or contractual problem. It was an institutional failure that demonstrated the degree to which political advocacy had overtaken journalistic integrity.

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!

For many longtime viewers across the political spectrum, that episode represented a clear breaking point. It became impossible to argue that CBS News was simply leaning left. It was operating with a mission orientation that prioritized shaping narratives rather than reporting truth. As a result, trust collapsed. Many of us who once had long-term professional, commercial, or intellectual ties to Paramount and CBS walked away.

David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount marks the most consequential change to the studio’s identity in a generation. Ellison is not anchored to the old Hollywood ecosystem where cultural signaling and activist messaging were considered more important than story, audience appeal, or shareholder value.

His professional history in film and strategic business management suggests an approach grounded in commercial performance, audience trust, and brand rebuilding rather than ideological identity. That shift matters because Paramount has spent years creating content and news coverage that seemed designed to provoke or instruct viewers rather than entertain or inform them. It was an approach that drained goodwill, eroded market share, and drove entire segments of the viewing public elsewhere.

The appointment of Bari Weiss as the new chief editor of CBS News is so significant. Weiss has built her reputation on rejecting ideological conformity imposed from either side. She has consistently spoken out against antisemitism and the moral disorientation that emerges when institutions prioritize political messaging over honesty.

Her brand centers on the belief that journalism should clarify rather than obscure. During President Trump’s recent 60 Minutes interview, he praised Weiss as a “great person” and credited her with helping restore integrity and editorial seriousness inside CBS. That moment signaled something important. Paramount is no longer simply rearranging executives. It is rethinking identity.

The appointment of Makan Delrahim as Chief Legal Officer was an early indicator. Delrahim’s background at the Department of Justice, where he led antitrust enforcement, signals seriousness about governance, compliance, and restoring institutional discipline.

But the deeper and more meaningful shift is occurring at the ownership and editorial levels, where the most politically charged parts of Paramount’s portfolio may finally be shedding the habits that alienated millions of viewers.The transformation will not be immediate. Institutions develop habits, internal cultures, and incentive structures that resist correction. There will be internal opposition, particularly from staff and producers who benefited from the ideological culture that defined CBS News in recent years.

There will be critics in Hollywood who see any shift toward balance as a threat to their influence. And there will be outside voices who will insist that any move away from their preferred political posture is regression.

But genuine reform never begins with instant consensus. It begins with leadership willing to be clear about the mission.

Paramount has the opportunity to reclaim what once made it extraordinary. Not as a symbol. Not as a message distribution vehicle. But as a studio that understands that good storytelling and credible reporting are not partisan aims. They are universal aims. Entertainment succeeds when it connects with audiences rather than instructing them. Journalism succeeds when it pursues truth rather than victory.

In an era when audiences have more viewing choices than at any time in history, trust is an economic asset. Viewers are sophisticated. They recognize when they are being lectured rather than engaged. They know when editorial goals are political rather than informational. And they are willing to reward any institution that treats them with respect.

There is now reason to believe Paramount understands this. The leadership is changing. The tone is changing. The incentives are being reassessed.

It is not the final outcome. But it is a real beginning. As the great Winston Churchill once said; “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.

For the first time in a long time, the door to cultural realignment in legacy media is open. And Paramount is standing at the threshold and has the capability to become a market leader once again. If Paramount acts, the industry will follow.

Bill Flaig and Tom Carter are the Co-Founders of The American Conservatives Values ETF, Ticker Symbol ACVF traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Ticker Symbol ACVF

Learn more at www.InvestConservative.com

Continue Reading

Business

Parliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano 

PBO slices through Carney’s creative accounting

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to cut spending following today’s bombshell Parliamentary Budget Officer report that criticizes the government’s definition of capital spending and promise to balance the operating budget.

“The reality is that Carney is continuing on a course of unaffordable borrowing and the PBO report shows government messaging about ‘balancing the operating budget’ is not credible,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Carney is using creative accounting to hide the spiralling debt.”

Carney’s Budget 2025 splits the budget into operating and capital spending and promises to balance the operating budget by 2028-29.

However, today’s PBO budget report states that Carney’s definition of capital spending is “overly expansive.” Without using that “overly expansive” definition of capital spending, the government would run an $18 billion operating deficit in 2028-29, according to the PBO.

“Based on our definition, capital investments would total $217.3 billion over 2024-25 to 2029-30, which is approximately 30 per cent ($94 billion) lower compared to Budget 2025,” according to the PBO. “Moreover, based on our definition, the operating balance in Budget 2025 would remain in a deficit position over 2024-25 to 2029-30.”

The PBO states that the Carney government is using “a definition of capital investment that expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice.” The report specifically points out that “by including corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits and operating (production) subsidies, the framework blends policy measures with capital formation.”

The federal government plans to borrow about $80 billion this year, according to Budget 2025. Carney has no plan stop borrowing money and balance the budget. Debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $55.6 billion this year, which is more than the federal government will send to the provinces in health transfers ($54.7 billion) or collect through the GST ($54.4 billion).

“Carney isn’t balancing anything when he borrows tens of billions of dollars every year,” Terrazzano said. “Instead of applying creative accounting to the budget numbers, Carney needs to cut spending and debt.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X