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

Economy

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Published on

From Michael Shellenberger

Image

Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. There is no scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise since the mid-19th Century, and thus none showing human-created emissions caused an acceleration in recent decades.
This does not mean that climate change isn’t happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise at a rate any higher than one would expect without human-caused climate change.
Not only that, but the top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public.
In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world’s leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me.
For years, the world’s top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. Not only that, in the process of this exchange, I gained a glimpse into how the scientists have been able to mislead journalists, policymakers, and the wider public for so long.
You might think this is either old news or unimportant. Some climate scientists in years past have pointed out that the real-world data do not support claims of acceleration. And in recent years, a supposed increase in natural disasters from climate change has eclipsed sea level rise in terms of attention-grabbing headlines. But sea level rise has, since the 1990s, been the main justification for apocalyptic climate claims, and past efforts to debunk sea level rise have failed to show that scientists were deliberately misleading.
The media and others have published terrifying maps of the future showing cities underwater. Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.
Not only can I prove that the real-world data do not support the claims that there has been an acceleration, I can show that the scientists deliberately misrepresented their research, and how they did it, thanks to my on-the-record email conversation with Kopp of Rutgers….
Please subscribe now to support Public’s award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video!

Continue Reading

Alberta

B.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.”

In case you haven’t heard, the Alberta government plans to submit a proposal to the federal government to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast.

But B.C. Premier Eby dismissed the idea, calling it a project imported from U.S. politics and pursued “at the expense of British Columbia and Canada’s economy.” He’s simply wrong. A new pipeline wouldn’t come at the expense of B.C. or Canada’s economy—it would strengthen both. In fact, particularly during the age of Trump, provinces should seek greater cooperation and avoid erecting policy barriers that discourage private investment and restrict trade and market access.

The United States remains the main destination for Canada’s leading exports, oil and natural gas. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. In light of President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy and other goods, it’s long past time to diversify our trade and find new export markets.

Given that most of Canada’s oil and gas is landlocked in the Prairies, pipelines to coastal terminals are the only realistic way to reach overseas markets. After the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project in May 2024, which transports crude oil from Alberta to B.C. and opened access to Asian markets, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent. This new global reach strengthens Canada’s leverage in trade negotiations with Washington, as it enables Canada to sell its energy to markets beyond the U.S.

Yet trade is just one piece of the broader economic impact. In its first year of operation, the TMX expansion generated $13.6 billion in additional revenue for the economy, including $2.0 billion in extra tax revenues for the federal government. By 2043, TMX operations will contribute a projected $9.2 billion to Canada’s economic output, $3.7 billion in wages, and support the equivalent of more than 36,000 fulltime jobs. And B.C. stands to gain the most, with $4.3 billion added to its economic output, nearly $1 billion in wages, and close to 9,000 new jobs. With all due respect to Premier Eby, this is good news for B.C. workers and the provincial economy.

In contrast, cancelling pipelines has come at a real cost to B.C. and Canada’s economy. When the Trudeau government scrapped the already-approved Northern Gateway project, Canada lost an opportunity to increase the volume of oil transported from Alberta to B.C. and diversify its trading partners. Meanwhile, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, B.C. lost out on nearly 8,000 jobs a year (or 224,344 jobs in 29 years) and more than $11 billion in provincial revenues from 2019 to 2048 (inflation-adjusted).

Now, with the TMX set to reach full capacity by 2027/28, and Premier Eby opposing Alberta’s pipeline proposal, Canada may miss its chance to export more to global markets amid rising oil demand. And Canadians recognize this opportunity—a recent poll shows that a majority of Canadians (including 56 per cent of British Columbians) support a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.

But, as others have asked, if the economic case is so strong, why has no private company stepped up to build or finance a new pipeline?

Two words—bad policy.

At the federal level, Bill C-48 effectively bans large oil tankers from loading or unloading at ports along B.C.’s northern coast, undermining the case for any new private-sector pipeline. Meanwhile, Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” And the federal cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector will inevitably force a reduction in oil and gas production, again making energy projects including pipelines less attractive to investors.

Clearly, policymakers in Canada should help diversify trade, boost economic growth and promote widespread prosperity in B.C., Alberta and beyond. To achieve this goal, they should put politics aside, focus of the benefits to their constituents, and craft regulations that more thoughtfully balance environmental concerns with the need for investment and economic growth.

Continue Reading

Trending

X