Environment minister defends carbon price after PBO report - "“When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” PBO Yves Giroux said in a statement following release of the report. “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.”"
Liberal MP asks for second look at carbon tax report that shows Canadians will come out behind - "Guelph MP Lloyd Longfield wrote an open letter to Giroux on Wednesday asking him to take a broader perspective, arguing the PBO wasn’t factoring in the cost of climate inaction."
'There is going to be a cost': Federal carbon pricing to generate 'net loss' for most households, PBO finds - "Giroux shrugged when informed that his report was used for partisan purposes. “I don’t really have anything to say to people who want to use any of our reports for political arguments. The point of any of our reports is to provide unbiased, nonpartisan information and analysis to parliamentarians so that they can have an informed debate,” he said. “We don’t take partisanship into consideration when we draft our reports. We focus on the numbers and the evidence that is available to us.”"
This doesn't stop liberals from insisting that most people will get back more than they pay
Given that this does nothing to fight climate change on a global level, what sort of voodoo accounting can be done to make the carbon tax look like it benefits most? Then again, if you impute an infinite cost to climate change (the end of the world), anything is justified. It's like Pascal's Wager
Liberal logic: if information can be used for the "wrong" ends (i.e. non-liberal approved ends), then it is "dangerous" and needs to be kept secret
Atlantic premiers call for meeting with Trudeau over new carbon tax - "With just about a week before the federal government’s new carbon tax kicks in, the Atlantic premiers are calling for a meeting with the prime minister “as soon as possible” — with hopes of halting it. They’ve sent a letter to Justin Trudeau to request the meeting. The premiers say the new clean fuel standards, which could see pump prices jump up in the region dramatically, will have a disproportionate impact on Atlantic Canadians."
Federal carbon tax will cost Atlantic family hundreds more than rebates - "The federal carbon tax will cost the average household in Atlantic Canada between $347 and $465 this year, even after the rebates, according to the PBO."
EDITORIAL: Provinces uniting against Trudeau
Canada's premiers united in their criticism of federal housing policy, carbon tax changes - "Canada's premiers lashed out at the federal government Monday, saying Ottawa is treading on thin ice by signing bilateral housing deals directly with municipalities while leaving provinces out of the mix. The premiers also faulted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for not having convened an in-person first ministers' meeting in five years. At a time when the country is facing a series of crises — a housing crunch, a stressed health-care system and big changes in climate policy — the country's premiers need face-time with Trudeau, they said. In the 2015 federal election, Trudeau campaigned on restoring "collaborative federal leadership," something he said was missing during former prime minister Stephen Harper's time in office. Some premiers said today he hasn't lived up to that promise."
Conservatives to force vote on exempting all forms of home heating from federal carbon tax - "Poilievre accused Trudeau of turning Canadians against each other as the federal Liberals are dipping in the polls. “What does he do when the heat starts? He divides and distracts. He will once again tear apart the country, turn Canadian against Canadian. We know how he does it. He divides by race, sexuality, vaccine status, and now region,” Poilievre said on Wednesday. “His latest tactic is to charge higher carbon taxes on some people than on other people.”"
Murray Mandryk: Sask. 'not gonna take it' on home heating hypocrisy - "when it comes to getting screwed over by Ottawa, there is simply no better example than the current federal government decision that it’s OK for citizens on on one side of this country to not have to pay the carbon tax on home heating, but it’s crucial those of us on the other side of this cold country continue to do so... Who wouldn’t capitalize on the lunacy of a federal government so desperate to cling to power it would exempt those who support it from tax? Enter federal Rural Economic Development Minister Gudie Hutchings. Hutchings said the decision to exempt oil for home heating was the result of the lobbying of Liberal Atlantic MPs. Asked by CTV if the exemption might be extended to the West paying the tax on natural gas, Hutchings replied: “Perhaps they need to elect more Liberals on the Prairies so we can have that discussion as well.”... who can possibly argue the fundamentally crass, unfairness of what the Trudeau government is doing? Certainly not the provincial NDP who moved an eventually unanimously supported motion condemning the federal policy before the Sask. Party could. “This shouldn’t be about political gains,” NDP Leader Carla Beck said. Anyone remember when the Sask. Party and the NDP last agreed on anything?"
Opinion: Trudeau replaces carbon tax's market incentives with central directives - "This government’s entire approach to climate change runs contrary to a well-designed and functioning carbon tax. So there’s a legitimate question to ask: given its predisposition to pick winners and losers, and actively manage the economy, will the Trudeau government ever implement and maintain a functioning and effective carbon tax? For that matter, will any federal government?"
Rex Murphy: The carbon tax is dead. Trudeau did it in - "He just cancelled the carbon tax for heating oil in Atlantic Canada. The tax which he and his docile, obedient and grey cabinet have defended with the fervour of one of those dated Sunday morning TV preachers. It was the mother of all taxes since — from the beginning of time, and possibly earlier — it was the ONLY tax that once paid, would (so the Liberals incessantly howled) be followed by a cheque from the government larger than the tax. And why was this planet-necessary policy amended for Atlantic Canada? First hint: it was not love. Second hint: polling during a Liberal nose-dive. It was the trembling or broken hold on the people’s trust currently on full display, and the irresistible need to grab on to anything that might stem or slow the Liberals’ Gadarene down-flight to voter dismissal, that brought on this Earth-shift in policy. No hint. Fact. It was Liberal politics... Confederation is a balance of partners, or it was before climate alarmism became the excuse and the shield for the vastly overreaching and imperious Trudeau regime. Premiers make policy, too. Take away the carbon tax and you take away the whole great game. If that once immutable requisite for a climate commitment on the scale Trudeau has given can be tossed as “inconvenient” (I owe Al Gore its slippery use here) to winning five or six seats in the next election, what remains of principle? What can be believed on any lesser front or issue? If politics trumps the planet for this government, if winning East Coast seats is more important than saving the world … so be it. It was good while it worked. What’s left of this shambling, shifting and scandal-adhesive government? Not much but more unctuous speeches, unpersuasive photo-ops at (already) troubled EV projects, and — capstone — Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, ex- or not so ex-Greenpeace activist, offering more friendly salutes to China’s great work on this file (opening two more coal mines a week seems to be Beijing’s aim), and more of his feverish speeches for a dying cause... Bit of a footnote on the Liberal cabinet minister who talked on CTV about provinces needing to elect more … what else … Liberal politicians if they want the same deal. That’s either a naked display of despicable political extortion deliberately and provocatively stated on national television, or perhaps (more likely?) just another bumble and stumble from another member of a nondescript cabinet. The Atlantic Excision — as I shall call it — from the imperious imposition of the world-saving carbon tax, puts Trudeau in direct and executed opposition to his first and only principle — combatting global warming. What’s he going to say in Paris the next time: “Hey, two-thirds of Canada has a carbon tax?”"
LILLEY: Poll shows Canadians see through Trudeau's carbon tax claims - "Canadians aren’t interested in paying more to fight climate change despite the Trudeau government’s plans to take Canada in that direction. A new poll finds just 18% support continuing to increase the tax while the majority want the tax reduced or eliminated altogether. In fact, more than twice as many Canadians, 37%, want the tax eliminated than want it to increase. Meanwhile, a further 18% want the tax reduced while 27% say it should stay where it is now... The poll even asked a direct question about paying more for gasoline and the response was an overwhelming no. After explaining that the current carbon tax contributes about 14 cents per litre to the price of gas and the planned increase will contribute 40 cents per litre by 2030, poll participants were asked, “Do you support paying more for gasoline as part of Canada’s climate net-zero policies?” A stunning 68% said no, they don’t want to pay more for gas while just 20% said yes and 12% said they didn’t know. Among those who said they don’t want to pay more for gas were 25% of those who said they want to keep seeing the carbon tax increase. Seems those advocating for the carbon tax to go up really mean they want other people to pay more, not themselves... Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem tried to tell Canadians that the carbon tax only added to inflation at a rate of 0.15%. That didn’t seem right and so Sylvain Charlebois, the Food Professor , asked the Bank for an explanation of how they arrived at that level. The answer is the Bank only calculates the impact of the tax on gas, heating oil and natural gas, they don’t look at its impact on other products or how it impacts prices as it is passed on through the supply chain to consumers. That makes the 0.15% a false claim, one you shouldn’t believe. It’s like the government’s claim that you will get back more than you pay in the carbon tax. That might be true for some but in reality it’s very few and that is by design. Carbon tax rebates are based off of averages, not what you actually pay or consume. Also, like the Bank of Canada’s calculations, it doesn’t account for the compounding impact of the tax on prices. As the Parliamentary Budget Office said in a review of the carbon tax earlier this year, “most households will see a net loss, paying more in fuel charges and GST, as well as receiving lower incomes, compared to the Climate Action Incentive payments they receive.”"
I saw liberals crowing that the carbon tax only added 0.15% to inflation. Guess they believe what they want to believe
Forty-two per cent of Canadians would get rid of carbon tax: Survey - "17% would lower it temporarily for the next three years. The survey also says one-quarter would hold off on any subsequent increases, maintaining current taxation levels, and 15% say they would continue as planned with a price increase in April 2024. The study also found concurrently that the proportion of those saying climate change is among their top issues facing Canada has dropped from 40% in 2019 to 34% in 2021 and to 22% in this latest study. That perception has contributed to an 11-point drop in support for carbon pricing in Canada compared to 2021 levels. In the areas where the federal carbon tax is operating, the government has said 90% of households will receive a quarterly rebate, but those who are relatively certain they received one is only 66% in Alberta and 58% in Ontario. And among those who have received a household rebate, at least 51% in each eligible region of the country say they feel they pay more for the carbon tax than they get back in benefits."
Immigration to factor in housing, health care,infrastructure - "In response to growing concern over Canada’s capacity to welcome more newcomers, the federal government says it will start incorporating housing, health care and infrastructure planning with provinces and municipalities as it sets the country’s annual immigration targets... Two national opinion polls this week pointed to a continuing decline in Canadians’ support for immigration. That’s despite the fact immigration is a tenet of Canada’s population and economic growth in the face of an aging population and low birth rates... While the federal government has jurisdiction over how many new permanent residents Canada will welcome, provinces and municipalities are the ones that provide these services to newcomers and deal with the on-the-ground consequences of immigration"
Duh
A downside of federalism
Canadians pay a high price when governments ignore common sense - "Common sense tells us that we can’t increase the population by more than one million people in a year — while only increasing housing by roughly 220,000 — without imposing enormous strain on the housing market... Or consider another hot-button issue — energy. The federal government and several provinces continue to march forward on a massive centrally-planned restructuring of the Canadian economy and our energy markets despite disastrous results in the parts of Europe and the United States that have pursued similar policies. Which raises a commonsense question: if this approach didn’t work in Europe and the U.S., why implement the same policies in Canada and expect different results? Yet Ottawa has imposed formal and informal restrictions on the exploration, development and transportation of traditional, reliable sources of energy such as oil and gas while pouring massive subsidies into unreliable renewable energy sources, principally wind and solar. Because the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine, these energy sources require back-ups, which must be available and maintained, making renewables more expensive. Like Europe and the U.S., Canada is on a path of more expensive but less reliable energy, which confounds basic common sense. At the same time, governments in Canada, particularly the Trudeau government, are imposing additional regulations to transition all motor vehicles to electric without any thought given to — let alone a realistic plan to address — the practical question of where all the additional electricity will come from to power both existing and future needs. In fact, the federal government has explicitly premised its plan on a yet-to-be-determined technological breakthrough. In other words, both the grand restructuring of the Canadian economy and therefore the wellbeing of Canadians rely on an assumed technological breakthrough in the future. To say this strategy lacks basic common sense is generous. Finally, consider Canada’s investment crisis. Simply put, business investment has collapsed. That has both short- and long-term consequences for Canadians. Common sense dictates that the federal government at least acknowledge the problem even if it’s not actually going to introduce pro-investment policies or, more importantly, undo policies (e.g., tax increases and aggressive regulations) that have impeded investment. Instead, leaders in Ottawa continue to ignore the problem, forging ahead with the policies that led to the current crisis."
Broadcasters want Apple to pay news outlets under Online News Act - "A group representing Canadian private TV and radio broadcasters is asking the Liberal government to include Apple in legislation that would force Google and Meta to share revenues with news publishers. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) said under the government’s proposed regulations only Google and Meta are covered by the Online News Act, “even though there are other platforms that benefit from the distribution of news content and are negatively impacting news businesses in Canada.”... There should also be “a specific clause to ensure that platforms sign deals with the most important providers of news in Canada before they can be exempt,” it said. That means the platforms would have to sign deals with “every eligible news business or any collective bargaining group employing 100 or more journalists in Canada” outside of Quebec in addition to at least 25 journalists in Quebec. It also asked the government to count positions like camera operators, sound technicians, and audio and video editors as journalists."
I remember when people were defending the bill, claiming only Google and Facebook would be affected
CBC blames $100 million budget cut on Meta and Google
News Media Canada Admits They May Have Made a Mistake With the Online News Act - "Major lobbyist organization, News Media Canada, is asking the government to accommodate Google with the Online News Act. Throughout the legislative process, supporters of the Online News Act have reacted overwhelmingly bad to anyone daring to even remotely criticize the Online News Act. Even those who were otherwise supportive of the legislative effort faced backlash for even suggesting that there is room for improvement over then-called Bill C-18. Of course, spiked editorials was only the beginning as many critics of the legislation were routinely subject to insults and accusations of being “Big Tech shills” or “paid shills for Big Tech” among other things. What’s more, supporters took a no compromise approach. For them, the bill is either perfect in every way or more than good enough in its current state. They regularly screeched ‘full steam ahead’ and shouted for the government to ‘stand up to the bullies’. The lawmakers they paid to have the bill written and passed, obviously, carried out those marching orders to the dismay of independent media who found themselves potentially seeing their careers ending before their very eyes (there was even a petition that many of us signed, asking the government to come to their senses). Somehow, anyone against this law were against democracy and against the media and whatever other defamatory statements supporters could conjure up for people like us... Everything critics like us has said would happen has already begun happening. In the face of reality, supporters of the Online News Act continued to insist it was all a big fancy bluff and that platforms wouldn’t last a week without news links. For them, it was absolutely important to stick to the talking points no matter how false they really were. In this case, the talking point they were sticking to is that platforms depend exclusively on news links and that without news links, the platforms would practically go out of business overnight. I’ll give you a moment to stop laughing. Of course, you can’t just talk your way out of reality. Sooner or later, reality just takes over, not caring what belief you are pushing onto it. It does what it wants to do. That is precisely what is happening here. Earlier this year, Google had announced that they would be dropping news links. They said that they would be in talks with the government, but that is their current position. In fact, it was just last week that Google had said that their position hasn’t changed at all and that they still intend on moving forward with dropping news links altogether. The thing is, as most web developers know, unless you have a very specific business model for your website that operates outside of depending on Google (which is very few and far between), having Google drop your website from its search results is basically a death sentence for your website. The damage was already being felt with Meta being forced to drop news links, but Google dropping news links was going to hurt a lot more for most of those sites. Even worse is that media companies would face the damaging effects of both at the same time. As I’ve said many times in the past, unless we are moving towards rescinding the Online News Act entirely, there’s really not much that can be done to avert disaster at this stage... Even just two weeks ago, this would be an unfathomable position for an organization like News Media Canada. The position all along was to ‘stand up to bullies’, ‘make platforms pay their fair share’, ‘do not compromise’, ‘never back down’, and so on and so forth. The last thing on their minds was to even listen to anything the platforms had to say. Now, they are calling on the government to actually listen to Google. A massive u-turn? Definitely. A major surrender? Absolutely. It was bound to happen sooner or later that supporters would finally stop digging. A major problem is that we are WAY too far into the process now. The law is passed. The CRTC can still backtrack and demand Google to pay up even more at a later time. Debate is, by and large, over for this. The business uncertainty for Google in all of this will always be there thanks to the way this legislation was crafted. At most, News Media Canada will get another talking point about how they offered compromise and Google didn’t take it. A natural response to that would be, “Congratulations. You won a free talking point” while news sites go bankrupt one by one. It’s a hollow victory at best. That’s why why I say rescinding the law is the first step in restoring sanity here."
It's impossible to be a big media shill, of course
Regulations Alone Can’t Fix Bill C-18: Why News Media Canada’s “Surrender” May Not Be Enough to Stop Google From Blocking News Links in Canada - "The shift in approach unquestionably marks a retreat for the group, which literally drafted a version of the bill for the government and wielded the power of major media outlets to skew national coverage in favour of the legislation. While it insisted that the companies were bluffing when they said they would block news links if a mandated payments for links approach were adopted, it is now readily apparent that they were mistaken. Meta has blocked news links on its Facebook and Instagram platforms for more than two months and shows no sign of changing its approach. Given that Google appears to be moving in the same direction, News Media Canada’s decision to toss the government under the bus reeks of desperation as its members recognize that blocked news links on both Meta and Google would create enormous harm in lost traffic, cancelled deals, and an Online News Act that generates no revenues. Bill C-18 stands as epic policy blunder by the government, which ignored recommendations for reforms during the legislative process and now finds itself stuck with a law that has become a model for what not to do. The key question, however, is whether the latest concession will be enough to convince Google to spend hundreds of millions on links and establish a precedent that could result in billions in liability worldwide. While News Media Canada has identified several issues where it supports Google’s request for regulatory change, the challenge is that Google’s regulatory response appears to arrive at the same conclusion as Meta, namely that regulations alone cannot save a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation... the value of news for advertising purposes in search is limited, since news queries are a small part of search activity (Google says only 2%) and advertisers are far more interested in advertising against searches for products or services, rather than searches for the latest news. In other words, as with Meta, news may be valuable, but it has limited value to the platforms."
Tech giant battle means doom for small news outlets, Trudeau was warned - "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s lifeline for Canada’s struggling media industry could instead spell disaster, digital start-ups and freelancers warned his office as it was doubling down on the Online News Act. Documents obtained by POLITICO through an Access-to-Information request reveal urgent appeals from freelancers and small news outlets who spelled out for top officials what would happen if they lost access to sharing news through both Google and Meta... Village Media’s CEO Jeff Elgie warned the prime minister in a letter that losing both Facebook and Google news will “most certainly devastate what has otherwise been a thriving ‘new’ media sector.”... Erin Millar, CEO of Indiegraf, a network of more than 100 small news organizations and startups, warned the PMO in a letter that the legislation could cause an “existential event” for many local newsrooms... “Bill C-18 suggests that our government leaders are deeply unaware of the role that social media plays in today’s freelance economy,” she said. “This bill is going to make it virtually impossible for freelancers like me to continue finding new clients while residing in Canada.” Gabriel Ramirez, who co-founded The Bridge Canada, a small independent news outlet aimed at immigrants from Latin America, told Ottawa during a public consultation that Meta’s exit from Canadian news is “killing us.”... Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge is staring down the clock with six weeks until the law comes fully into effect. Google used its public regulatory submission to establish its lines in the sand. The company wants a firm liability cap and a clear number of how many news businesses the search firm would have to financially support. It has argued for months that the law remains unworkable and the government has yet to address its biggest concerns. But St-Onge maintains that backing down is out of the question and she still insists Ottawa and Google can reach an agreement over the fine details."
Glenn Greenwald on X - "The Canadian government, armed with one of the world's most repressive online censorship schemes, announces that all "online streaming services that offer podcasts" must formally register with the government to permit regulatory controls"
LILLEY: Trudeau Liberals will regulate podcasts while claiming they won't - "Don’t worry, say the Trudeau Liberals, they aren’t regulating podcasts — just every platform and streaming service you use to access them. If there is one proof point that the Trudeau Liberals, and the media who cover them, don’t understand the internet, it was that claim on Tuesday morning... Right now, on Canadian radio, there is a Canadian content requirement. Will your Apple Music subscription soon be required to play one Canadian song for every two non-Canadian songs? Will you need to listen to a Canadian podcast before you listen to the next episode of Trevor Noah, Joe Rogan or Call Her Daddy? The truth is we don’t know because so much of what will come from Bill C-11 has been left up to regulations to be set out by the CRTC. What we can tell you is that the minister has directed the CRTC to ensure more Canadians are hired by these online platforms, that Canadian programs are discoverable and supported, that the right “ethnocultural groups” are represented. In fact, the direction tells the CRTC to prioritize sections 13-16 which are headlined as determination of Canadian programming, Indigenous peoples, equity-seeking and ethnocultural groups and official languages minority communities. This is about turning the online world, where many Canadians of all kinds of diverse backgrounds have found success, into the internet version of today’s Canadian broadcasting system where there are teams of gatekeepers to decide if you have the right views and meet their criteria. It won’t be about audience, it will be about the wishes and whims of the government and the bureaucrats, and that is never a good thing. Despite what the headlines tell you, it’s not just the podcasts that will be regulated, it will be the whole internet under this bill and these regulations. Canadians should be very worried."
