Business
We’re paying the bills, why shouldn’t we have a say?
By David Clinton
Shaping Government Spending Choices to Reflect Taxpayer Preferences
Technically, the word “democracy” means “rule of the people”. But we all know that the ability to throw the bums out every few years is a poor substitute for “rule”. And as I’ve already demonstrated, the last set of bums you sent to Ottawa are 19 times more likely than not to simply vote along party lines. So who they are as individuals barely even matters.
This story isn’t new, and it hasn’t even got a decent villain. But it is about a universal weakness inherent in all modern, nation-scale democracies. After all, complex societies governed by hundreds of thousands of public servants who are responsible for spending trillions of dollars can’t realistically account for millions of individual voices. How could you even meaningfully process so many opinions?
Hang on. It’s 2025. These days, meaningfully processing lots of data is what we do. And the challenge of reliably collecting and administrating those opinions is trivial. I’m not suggesting we descend into some hellish form of governance by opinion poll. But I do wonder why we haven’t tried something that’s far more focused, measured, and verifiable: directed revenue spending.
Self-directed income tax payments? Crazy, no? Except that we’ve been doing it in Ontario for at least 60 years. We (sometimes) get to choose which of five school boards – English public, French public, English separate (Catholic), French separate (Catholic), or Protestant separate (Penetanguishene only) – will receive the education portion of our property tax.
Here’s how it could work. A set amount – perhaps 20 percent of the total federal tax you owe – would be considered discretionary. The T1 tax form could include the names of, say, ten spending programs next to numeric boxes. You would enter the percentage of the total discretionary portion of your income tax that you’d like directed to each program with the total of all ten boxes adding up to 100.
The specific programs made available might change from one year to the next. Some might appear only once every few years. That way, the departments responsible for executing the programs wouldn’t have to deal with unpredictable funding. But what’s more important, governments would have ongoing insights into what their constituents actually wanted them to be doing. If they disagreed, a government could up their game and do a better job explaining their preferences. Or it could just give up and follow the will of their taxpayers.
Since there would only be a limited number of pre-set options available, you wouldn’t have to worry about crackpot suggestions (“Nuke Amurika!”) or even reasoned and well-meaning protest campaigns (“Nuke Ottawa!”) taking over. And since everyone who files a tax form has to participate, you won’t have to worry about a small number of squeaky wheels dominating the public discourse.
Why would any governing party go along with such a plan? Well, they almost certainly won’t if that’s any comfort. Nevertheless, in theory at least, they could gain significant political legitimacy were their program preferences to receive overwhelming public support. And if politicians and civil servants truly believed they toil in the service of the people of Canada, they should be curious about what the people of Canada actually want.
What could go wrong?
Well the complexity involved with adding a new layer of constraints to spending planning can’t be lightly dismissed. And there’s always the risk that activists could learn to game the system by shaping mass movements through manipulative online messaging. The fact that wealthy taxpayers will have a disproportionate impact on spending also shouldn’t be ignored. Although, having said that, I’m not convinced that the voices of high-end taxpayers are less valuable than those of the paid lobbyists and PMO influencers who currently get all the attention.
Those are serious considerations. I’m decidedly less concerned about some other possible objections:
- The risk that taxpayers might demonstrate a preference for short term fixes or glamour projects over important long term wonkish needs (like debt servicing) rings hollow. Couldn’t those words just as easily describe the way many government departments already behave?
- Couldn’t taxpayer choices be influenced by dangerous misinformation campaigns? Allowing for the fact the words “misinformation campaign” make me nervous, that’s certainly possible. But I’m aware of no research demonstrating that, as a class, politicians and civil servants are somehow less susceptible to such influences.
- Won’t such a program allow governments to deflect responsibility for their actions? Hah! I spit in your face in rueful disdain! When was the last time any government official actually took responsibility (or even lost a job) over stupid decisions?
- Won’t restricting access to a large segment of funds make it harder to respond to time-sensitive emergencies? There are already plenty of political and policy-based constraints on emergency spending choices. There’s no reason this program couldn’t be structured intelligently enough to prevent appropriate responses to a genuine emergency.
This idea has no more chance of being applied as some of the crazy zero-tax ideas from my previous post. But things certainly aren’t perfect right now, and throwing some fresh ideas into the mix can’t hurt.
Business
US Energy Secretary says price of energy determined by politicians and policies

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
During the latest marathon cabinet meeting on Dec. 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright made news when he told President Donald Trump that “The biggest determinant of the price of energy is politicians, political leaders, and polices — that’s what drives energy prices.”
He’s right about that, and it is why the back-and-forth struggle over federal energy and climate policy plays such a key role in America’s economy and society. Just 10 months into this second Trump presidency, the administration’s policies are already having a profound impact, both at home and abroad.
While the rapid expansion of AI datacenters over the past year is currently being blamed by many for driving up electric costs, power bills were skyrocketing long before that big tech boom began, driven in large part by the policies of the Obama and Biden administration designed to regulate and subsidize an energy transition into reality. As I’ve pointed out here in the past, driving up the costs of all forms of energy to encourage conservation is a central objective of the climate alarm-driven transition, and that part of the green agenda has been highly effective.
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!
President Trump, Wright, and other key appointees like Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin have moved aggressively throughout 2025 to repeal much of that onerous regulatory agenda. The GOP congressional majorities succeeded in phasing out Biden’s costly green energy subsidies as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law on July 4. As the federal regulatory structure eases and subsidy costs diminish, it is reasonable to expect a gradual easing of electricity and other energy prices.
This year’s fading out of public fear over climate change and its attendant fright narrative spells bad news for the climate alarm movement. The resulting cracks in the green facade have manifested rapidly in recent weeks.
Climate-focused conflict groups that rely on public fears to drive donations have fallen on hard times. According to a report in the New York Times, the Sierra Club has lost 60 percent of the membership it reported in 2019 and the group’s management team has fallen into infighting over elements of the group’s agenda. Greenpeace is struggling just to stay afloat after losing a huge court judgment for defaming pipeline company Energy Transfer during its efforts to stop the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
350.org, an advocacy group founded by Bill McKibben, shut down its U.S. operations in November amid funding woes that had forced planned 25 percent budget cuts for 2025 and 2026. Employees at EDF voted to form their own union after the group went through several rounds of budget cuts and layoffs in recent months.
The fading of climate fears in turn caused the ESG management and investing fad to also fall out of favor, leading to a flood of companies backtracking on green investments and climate commitments. The Net Zero Banking Alliance disbanded after most of America’s big banks – Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and others – chose to drop out of its membership.
The EV industry is also struggling. As the Trump White House moves to repeal Biden-era auto mileage requirements, Ford Motor Company is preparing to shut down production of its vaunted F-150 Lightning electric pickup, and Stellantis cancelled plans to roll out a full-size EV truck of its own. Overall EV sales in the U.S. collapsed in October and November following the repeal of the $7,500 per car IRA subsidy effective Sept 30.
The administration’s policy actions have already ended any new leasing for costly and unneeded offshore wind projects in federal waters and have forced the suspension or abandonment of several projects that were already moving ahead. Capital has continued to flow into the solar industry, but even that industry’s ability to expand seems likely to fade once the federal subsidies are fully repealed at the end of 2027.
Truly, public policy matters where energy is concerned. It drives corporate strategies, capital investments, resource development and movement, and ultimately influences the cost of energy in all its forms and products. The speed at which Trump and his key appointees have driven this principle home since Jan. 20 has been truly stunning.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Business
Oil tanker traffic surges but spills stay at zero after Trans Mountain Expansion
From the Canadian Energy Centre
Bigger project maintains decades-long marine safety record
The Trans Mountain system continues its decades-long record of zero marine spills, even as oil tanker traffic has surged more than 800 per cent since the pipeline’s expansion in May 2024.
The number of tankers calling at Trans Mountain’s Westridge Marine Terminal in the Port of Vancouver in one month now rivals the number that used to go through in one year.
A global trend toward safer tanker operations
Trans Mountain’s safe operations are part of a worldwide trend. Global oil tanker traffic is up, yet spills are down, according to the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, a London, UK-based nonprofit that provides data and response support.
Transport Canada reports a 95 per cent drop in ship-source oil spills and spill volumes since the 1970s, driven by stronger ship design, improved response and better regulations.
“Tankers are now designed much more safely. They are double-hulled and compartmentalized to mitigate spills,” said Mike Lowry, spokesperson for the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC).
WCMRC: Ready to protect the West Coast
One of WCMRC’s new response vessels arrives in Barkley Sound. Photo courtesy Western Canada Marine Response Corporation
From eight marine bases including Vancouver and Prince Rupert, WCMRC stands at the ready to protect all 27,000 kilometres of Canada’s western coastline.
Lowry sees the corporation as similar to firefighters — training to respond to an event they hope they never have to see.
In September, it conducted a large-scale training exercise for a worst-case spill scenario. This included the KJ Gardner — Canada’s largest spill response vessel and a part of WCMRC’s fleet since 2024.
“It’s part of the work we do to make sure everybody is trained and prepared to use our assets just in case,” Lowry said.
Expanding capacity for Trans Mountain
The K.J. Gardner is the largest-ever spill response vessel in Canada. Photo courtesy Western Canada Marine Response Corporation
WCMRC’s fleet and capabilities were doubled with a $170-million expansion to support the Trans Mountain project.
Between 2012 and 2024, the company grew from 13 people and $12 million in assets to more than 200 people and $213 million in assets.
“About 80 per cent of our employees are mariners who work as deckhands, captains and marine engineers on our vessels,” Lowry said.
“Most of the incidents we respond to are small marine diesel spills — the last one was a fuel leak from a forest logging vessel near Nanaimo — so we have deployed our fleet in other ways.”
Tanker safety starts with strong rules and local expertise
Tanker loading at the Westridge Marine Terminal in the Port of Vancouver. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation
Speaking on the ARC Energy Ideas podcast, Trans Mountain CEO Mark Maki said tanker safety starts with strong regulations, including the use of local pilots to guide vessels into the harbour.
“On the Mississippi River, you have Mississippi River pilots because they know how the river behaves. Same thing would apply here in Vancouver Harbour. Tides are strong, so people who are familiar with the harbor and have years and decades of experience are making sure the ships go in and out safely,” Maki said.
“A high standard is applied to any ship that calls, and our facility has to meet very strict requirements. And we have rejected ships, just said, ‘Nope, that one doesn’t fit the bill.’ A ship calling on our facilities is very, very carefully looked at.”
Working with communities to protect sensitive areas
Beyond escorting ships and preparing for spills, WCMRC partners with coastal communities to map sensitive areas that need rapid protection including salmon streams, clam beds and culturally important sites like burial grounds.
“We want to empower communities and nations to be more prepared and involved,” Lowry said.
“They can help us identify and protect the areas that they value or view as sensitive by working with our mapping people to identify those areas in advance. If we know where those are ahead of time, we can develop a protection strategy for them.”
-
Business2 days agoCanada’s climate agenda hit business hard but barely cut emissions
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Sports Hall of Fame Announces Class of 2026 Inductees
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoIntegration Or Indignation: Whose Strategy Worked Best Against Trump?
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoAI is accelerating the porn crisis as kids create, consume explicit deepfake images of classmates
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s Toronto cabinet meetings cost $530,000
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoConservative MP Leslyn Lewis slams Liberal plan targeting religious exemption in hate speech bil
-
Health2 days ago23,000+ Canadians died waiting for health care in one year as Liberals pushed euthanasia
-
MAiD1 day ago101-year-old woman chooses assisted suicide — press treats her death as a social good




