Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Feds facing the consequences of the costly carbon tax

Published

4 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Gage Haubrich

Ottawa unveiled an unorthodox carbon tax communications strategy in Saskatchewan: threats.

Saskatchewan minister responsible for SaskEnergy, Dustin Duncan, recently announced that the Saskatchewan government will not be sending the federal government money to cover its refusal to charge Saskatchewanians the carbon tax on home heating.

In October, Saskatchewan announced that it would stop collecting the federal carbon tax on home heating in the province. The provincial government estimates this will save the average family who uses natural gas to heat their home $400 this year. That’s enough to pay for a couple trips to the grocery store, and with the current prices at the store, families need all the relief they can get.

In response, federal Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson shot back  at Saskatchewan, announcing that because of this decision, Saskatchewanians will no longer be receiving the federal government’s carbon tax rebate.

Premier Scott Moe then pointed out the absurdity of the feds by highlighting that Saskatchewanians are still paying the carbon tax on gas, diesel and propane.

This whole mess started because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau backpedalled on his carbon tax and decided take it off heating oil. It’s a fuel primarily used in Atlantic Canada and used by almost zero Saskatchewanians.

Despite the exemption in Atlantic Canada being very similar to Premier Scott Moe’s plan in Saskatchewan, Atlantic Canadians are still on track to receive carbon tax rebates. And Quebec, which pays a lower carbon tax than the rest of the country, hasn’t faced the wrath of the federal government either.

Ottawa instead decided to pick a fight with Saskatchewan. It’s fight that won’t win them any favours in the province. At this point, it’s a good bet the Winnipeg Blue Bombers are more popular in Saskatchewan than the Liberals.

But not do outdo even himself, Wilkinson also added, “The rebate actually provides more money for most families in Saskatchewan.”

If only that were true.

Currently, the carbon tax costs 14 cents per litre of gasoline and will cost the average Saskatchewan family $410 this year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Oh, and that’s including the rebates that Wilkinson is currently threatening to withhold.

Along with the carbon tax, Ottawa also charges a 10 cents per litre federal tax gas tax and then GST on top of the whole price of the gas, including the carbon tax. That means you are paying about two cents per litre in tax-on-tax in GST every time you fill up your vehicle.

And it’s going to get worse because the federal government plans to keep hiking up the carbon tax.

Come April 1, the carbon tax cost jumps to 17 cents per litre. By 2030, it will be 37 cents per litre and cost the average Saskatchewan household $1,723 per year.

And since almost everything we buy is delivered by a truck and then stored inside a store, the costs to transport and sell those items also goes up with the carbon tax.

After the announcement of the carbon tax heating oil exemption, five premiers, including Moe, wrote to Trudeau demanding that he take the carbon tax off all forms of home heating. It’s good to see premiers across the country take a stand, but Moe is the only one taking real action.

Instead of resorting to threats, maybe Ottawa should take the hint and scrap the carbon tax.

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

Daily Caller

Daily Caller EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s Broad Ban On Risky Gain-Of-Function Research Nears Completion

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

President Donald Trump could sign a sweeping executive order banning gain-of-function research — research that makes viruses more dangerous in the lab — as soon as May 6, according to a source who has worked with the National Security Council on the issue.

The executive order will take a broad strokes approach, banning research amplifying the infectivity or pathogenicity of any virulent and replicable pathogen, according to the source, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the anticipated executive action. But significant unresolved issues remain, according to the source, including whether violators will be subject to criminal penalties as bioweaponeers.

The executive order is being steered by Gerald Parker, head of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, which has been incorporated into the NSC. Parker did not respond to requests for comment.

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!

In the process of drafting the executive order, Parker has frozen out the federal agencies that have for years championed gain-of-function research and staved off regulation — chiefly Anthony Fauci’s former institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

The latest policy guidance on gain-of-function research, unveiled under the Biden administration in 2024, was previously expected to go into effect May 6. According to a March 25 letter cosigned by the American Society for Microbiology, the Association for Biosafety and Biosecurity International, and Council on Governmental Relations, organizations that conduct pathogen research have not received direction from the NIH on that guidance — suggesting the executive order would supersede the May 6 deadline.

The 2024 guidance altered the scope of experiments subject to more rigorous review, but charged researchers, universities and funding agencies like NIH with its implementation, which critics say disincentivizes reporting. Many scientists say that researchers and NIH should not be the primary entities conducting cost–benefit analyses of pandemic virus studies. 

Parker previously served as the head of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), a group of outside experts that advises NIH on biosecurity matters, and in that role recommended that Congress stand up a new government agency to advise on gain-of-function research. Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield has also endorsed moving gain-of-function research decision making out of the NIH to an independent commission.

“Given the well documented lapses in the NIH review process, policymakers should … remove final approval of any gain-of function research grants from NIH,” Redfield said in a February op-ed.

It remains to be seen whether the executive order will articulate carveouts for gain-of-function research without risks of harm such as research on non-replicative pseudoviruses, which can be used to study viral evolution without generating pandemic viruses.

It also remains to be seen whether the executive order will define “gain-of-function research” tightly enough to stand up to legal scrutiny should a violator be charged with a crime.

Risky research on coronaviruses funded by the NIH at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through the U.S. nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance typifies the loopholes in NIH’s existing regulatory framework, some biosecurity experts say.

Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act in 2023 indicated that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak submitted a proposal to the Pentagon in 2018 called “DEFUSE” describing gain-of-function experiments on viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 but downplayed to his intended funder the fact that many of the tests would occur in Wuhan, China.

Daszak and EcoHealth were both debarred from federal funding in January 2025 but have faced no criminal charges.

“I don’t know that criminal penalties are necessary. But we do need more sticks in biosafety as well as carrots,” said a biosecurity expert who requested anonymity to avoid retribution from his employer for weighing in on the expected policy. “For instance, biosafety should be a part of tenure review and whether you get funding for future work.”

Some experts say that it is likely that the COVID-19 crisis was a lab-generated pandemic, and that without major policy changes it might not be the last one.

“Gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens caused the COVID-19 pandemic, killing 20 million and costing $25 trillion,” said Richard Ebright, a Rutgers University microbiologist and longtime critic of high-risk virology, to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “If not stopped, gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens likely will cause future lab-generated pandemics.”

Continue Reading

John Stossel

Climate Change Myths Part 1: Polar Bears, Arctic Ice, and Food Shortages

Published on

From StosselTV

Climate zealots tell us the end is near. It’s the era of “global BOILING!” says the UN Secretary General. Climate alarmists say the Arctic will soon be ice-free and cities will be underwater! But what do the facts say?

The facts say that the climate change fanatics’ catastrophic claims are wrong.

In this video and the next, we’ll debunk 7 myths about climate change.

First up: melting ice, polar bear extinction, and climate change famines.

Here are the sources for this video:

No new record low summer ice extent observed since 2012. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c…

Satellite data show average annual sea ice volume largely stable since 2010: https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-c…

Total arctic ice mass: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projec…

Polar Bear Estimates 1993-today: https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/…

1981: https://portals.iucn.org/library/site…

1960s: https://www.google.com/books/edition/…

Global agricultural output: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ag…

NASA Greening study: https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-faci…

Malnutrition deaths: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ma…

Coffee production: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

 

After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom. ”

——————————————

Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.

Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.

Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.

Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club. Other honors include the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award.

_ _ _ _ _ _

In order not to miss the next video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://johnstossel.activehosted.com/f/1

_ _ _ _ _ _

Continue Reading

Trending

X