Connect with us

Economy

MP Earl Dreeshen explains opposition to budget and support for plan to replace the Carbon Tax

Published

9 minute read

Submitted by Red Deer – Mountain View MP Earl Dreeshen

In Touch with MP Earl Dreeshen

2021 has continued to be a challenging year after a turbulent 2020. Our community as well as communities and governments around the world are navigating the COVID-19 pandemic and it has led to significant challenges. Many people are dealing with significant health effects, financial strain, mental health strain, and so much more.

I would challenge everybody to recognize that, to some degree, everyone in Canada has been affected by the pandemic. I encourage you to keep that in mind in our dealing with our neighbors and fellow community members going forward.

2021 Budget

For the first time in over two years, the Liberal Government has tabled a budget. They spent most of the pandemic, and the year prior, dodging from accountability on their spending and we can see why.

It’s clear Justin Trudeau’s election budget fails to put forward a plan to adequately fund healthcare, grow the economy, and create jobs.

Justin Trudeau’s budget is a massive letdown for Canadians. Unemployed Canadians hoping to see a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for their families are going to feel let down. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy are going to feel let down. Families that can’t afford more taxes and are struggling to save more money for their children’s education or to buy a home are going to feel let down.

This is not stimulus spending focused on creating jobs, but spending on Liberal partisan priorities backed by a $100 billion election slush fund. Unfortunately, this budget does nothing to secure long term prosperity for Canadians. Instead, what Justin Trudeau has proposed is a “reimagined” Canadian economy that dabbles in risky economic ideas, like abandoning Canada’s world leading and sustainable natural resource industries, leaving our economy in a precarious position.

For these reasons, my Conservative colleagues and I voted against the 2021 Budget. More of my thoughts on the budget can be found here

Economic Recovery

As Conservatives, we have been focused on economic recovery across Canada. We acknowledge that these times are unprecedented and additional measures were necessary. Millions of Canadians had their employment and businesses impacted and there was a responsibility to those who fell through the cracks.

However, the reason why these programs need to be extended is due to Justin Trudeau’s failure on vaccines. We are behind many of our allies on moving forward which is why it is so critical that we have a plan to recovery now, and can hit the ground running when possible.

Erin O’Toole and our team has put forward Canada’s Recovery Plan, which is focused on creating financial security and certainty. This plan will safely secure our future and deliver a Canada where those who have struggled the most through this pandemic can get back to work.

This plan will ensure that manufacturing at home is bolstered, where wages go up, and where the dream of affording a better life for their children can be realized by all Canadians.

We are focused on securing jobs and the economy for Canadians who have been left behind by Justin Trudeau.

Canada’s Conservatives got Canada through the last recession, and with Canada’s Recovery Plan, we will get Canadians through this one too.

Conservative Environment Policy

I have heard a lot of feedback already on the proposed Conservative Environment Policy.

As you might know, I have been a vehement opponent of the Liberal government’s environmental approach, and of their Carbon Tax. I have spoken in the House of Commons and other venues on many occasions about the devastating impact the Carbon Tax is having on our farmers and ranchers as well as its devastating impact on all residents of Alberta – who are literally seeing their paychecks and their savings eaten away by this ill-conceived Liberal tax.

My Conservative colleagues and I remain committed to scrapping the job-killing Carbon Tax. We also remain firmly committed to protecting and enhancing our environment – as Conservatives have always done. Conservatives have always been the party which cares the most about conserving our resources, protecting our soils and waters, while taking action to preserve the environment we live in. As Western Canadians, we all understand the need to preserve the environment for future generations.

What we don’t understand is the Liberal government’s approach which is one of big government taxing consumers and phasing out jobs at a time that we need them the most.

Our plan for the environment does include a carbon pricing mechanism. Young Canadians in particular want to see us take action on this front. And we will need a broader base of voter support than we have had in the past if we are going to form Canada’s next government.

In a nutshell, the Low Carbon Saving Account works like Airmiles or other affinity programs. When you purchase gas, your card is fully credited the carbon price. You can bank that money to eventually use on energy efficient products like new windows, hot water tanks, low emission equipment for your farm or business, etc. Businesses get their own account so they no longer pass the cost onto you the consumer as a ‘hidden carbon tax’.

A comparison I have heard is to the deposit on your cans and bottles. You pay it, but if you return the cans and bottles you get that money back. Yes, there will be upfront costs, but the costs will be less than 1/3 of the Liberal plan once fully implemented and you retain agency of every penny you put in.

One of the other major concepts is that small businesses and non-profits will be able to keep control of the money they pay, instead of the current system where these organizations subsidize the program for people in downtown Toronto who don’t have to drive to work.

The savings account idea is only a portion of the plan in total. I would encourage you to look at the whole plan if you are interested. One of the driving ideas is that we don’t want to shut down our industry just to see it end up in other jurisdictions. Our plan addresses that by being less punishing for using carbon while still incentivising more environmentally friendly practises through use of the savings plan. We will also study putting tariffs on certain products that come from places like China that do not do their part in addressing the environment, so that we are not artificially harming our own industries.

Independent analysis, conducted by Navius Research, found this plan would be expected to achieve substantially the same emission reductions as the Stephen Harper’s targets, while resulting in a boost to jobs and the economy. In addition, not a cent of consumer tax dollars will end up with bureaucrats in Ottawa.

I would ask you to take the time to read the plan in its entirety and not rely solely on media coverage.

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

Trump confirms 35% tariff on Canada, warns more could come

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump on Thursday confirmed a sweeping new 35% tariff on Canadian imports starting August 1, citing Canada’s failure to curb fentanyl trafficking and retaliatory trade actions.

Key Details:

  • In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said the new 35% levy is in response to Canada’s “financial retaliation” and its inability to stop fentanyl from reaching the U.S.
  • Trump emphasized that Canadian businesses that relocate manufacturing to the U.S. will be exempt and promised expedited approvals for such moves.
  • The administration has already notified 23 countries of impending tariffs following the expiration of a 90-day negotiation window under Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade policy.

Diving Deeper:

President Trump escalated his tariff strategy on Thursday, formally announcing a 35% duty on all Canadian imports effective August 1. The move follows what Trump described as a breakdown in trade cooperation and a failure by Canada to address its role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis.

“It is a Great Honor for me to send you this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationship,” Trump wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney. He added that the tariff response comes after Canada “financially retaliated” against the U.S. rather than working to resolve the flow of fentanyl across the northern border.

Trump’s letter made clear the tariff will apply broadly, separate from any existing sector-specific levies, and included a warning that “goods transshipped to evade this higher Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.” The president also hinted that further retaliation from Canada could push rates even higher.

However, Trump left the door open for possible revisions. “If Canada works with me to stop the flow of Fentanyl, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter,” he said, adding that tariffs “may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship.”

Canadian companies that move operations to the U.S. would be exempt, Trump said, noting his administration “will do everything possible to get approvals quickly, professionally, and routinely — In other words, in a matter of weeks.”

The U.S. traded over $762 billion in goods with Canada in 2024, with a trade deficit of $63.3 billion, a figure Trump called a “major threat” to both the economy and national security.

Speaking with NBC News on Thursday, Trump suggested even broader tariff hikes are coming, floating the idea of a 15% or 20% blanket rate on all imports. “We’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay,” he told Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker, adding that “the tariffs have been very well-received” and noting that the stock market had hit new highs that day.

The Canadian announcement is part of a broader global tariff rollout. In recent days, Trump has notified at least 23 countries of new levies and revealed a separate 50% tariff on copper imports.

“Not everybody has to get a letter,” Trump said when asked if other leaders would be formally notified. “You know that. We’re just setting our tariffs.”

Continue Reading

Business

UN’s ‘Plastics Treaty’ Sports A Junk Science Wrapper

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Craig Rucker

According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.

Just as people were beginning to breathe a sigh of relief thanks to the Trump administration’s rollback of onerous climate policies, the United Nations is set to finalize a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty by the end of the year that will impose new regulations, and, ultimately higher costs, on one of the world’s most widely used products.

Plastics – derived from petroleum – are found in everything from water bottles, tea bags, and food packaging to syringes, IV tubes, prosthetics, and underground water pipes.  In justifying the goal of its treaty to regulate “the entire life cycle of plastic – from upstream production to downstream waste,” the U.N. has put a bull’s eye on plastic waste.  “An estimated 18 to 20 percent of global plastic waste ends up in the ocean,” the UN says.

As delegates from over 170 countries prepare for the final round of negotiations in Geneva next month, debate is intensifying over the future of plastic production, regulation, and innovation. With proposals ranging from sweeping bans on single-use plastics to caps on virgin plastic output, policymakers are increasingly citing the 2020 Pew Charitable Trusts reportBreaking the Plastic Wave, as one of the primary justifications.

But many of the dire warnings made in this report, if scrutinized, ring as hollow as an empty PET soda bottle. Indeed, a closer look reveals Pew’s report is less a roadmap to progress than a glossy piece of junk science propaganda—built on false assumptions and misguided solutions.

Pew’s core claim is dire: without urgent global action, plastic entering the oceans will triple by 2040. But this alarmist forecast glosses over a fundamental fact—plastic pollution is not a global problem in equal measure. According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.

This blind spot has serious consequences. Pew’s solutions—cutting plastic production, phasing out single-use items, and implementing rigid global regulations—miss the mark entirely. Banning straws in the U.S. or taxing packaging in Europe won’t stop waste from being dumped into rivers in countries with little or no waste infrastructure. Policies targeting Western consumption don’t solve the problem—they simply shift it or, worse, stifle useful innovation.

The real tragedy isn’t plastic itself, but the mismanagement of plastic waste—and the regulatory stranglehold that blocks better solutions. In many countries, recycling is a government-run monopoly with little incentive to innovate. Meanwhile, private-sector entrepreneurs working on advanced recycling, biodegradable materials, and AI-powered sorting systems face burdensome red tape and market distortion.

Pew pays lip service to innovation but ultimately favors centralized planning and control. That’s a mistake. Time and again, it’s been technology—not top-down mandates—that has delivered environmental breakthroughs.

What the world needs is not another top-down, bureaucratic report like Pew’s, but an open dialogue among experts, entrepreneurs, and the public where new ideas can flourish. Imagine small-scale pyrolysis units that convert waste into fuel in remote villages, or decentralized recycling centers that empower informal waste collectors. These ideas are already in development—but they’re being sidelined by policymakers fixated on bans and quotas.

Worse still, efforts to demonize plastic often ignore its benefits. Plastic is lightweight, durable, and often more environmentally efficient than alternatives like glass or aluminum. The problem isn’t the material—it’s how it has been managed after its use. That’s a “systems” failure, not a material flaw.

Breaking the Plastic Wave champions a top-down, bureaucratic vision that limits choice, discourages private innovation, and rewards entrenched interests under the guise of environmentalism. Many of the groups calling for bans are also lobbying for subsidies and regulatory frameworks that benefit their own agendas—while pushing out disruptive newcomers.

With the UN expected to finalize the treaty by early 2026, nations will have to face the question of ratification.  Even if the Trump White House refuses to sign the treaty – which is likely – ordinary Americans could still feel the sting of this ill-advised scheme.  Manufacturers of life-saving plastic medical devices, for example, are part of a network of global suppliers.  Companies located in countries that ratify the treaty will have no choice but to pass the higher costs along, and Americans will not be spared.

Ultimately, the marketplace of ideas—not the offices of policy NGOs—will deliver the solutions we need. It’s time to break the wave of junk science—not ride it.

Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org).

Continue Reading

Trending

X