The article references an internal memo from a senior public servant at Natural Resources Canada (NRCan – the federal government department that deals with resource issues such as energy). NRCan Assistant Deputy Minister Mollie Johnson, a senior bureaucrat, is the memo’s author, and in it she notes that the department has been looking into questions on how, amongst other things, the “Net Zero by 2050” campaign will affect affordability for consumers.
“how, amongst other things, the “Net Zero by 2050” campaign will affect affordability for consumers.”
Now, the National Observer provides a customary green dodge on the legitimate question about the costs of Net Zero by 2050, noting that this is the kind of question oil and gas industry players focus on. The National Observer goes on to insist that the real issue is that the costs of the climate crisis are soaring – they do not really specify what costs except to point to weather events and suggest these are getting worse and that the costs of them are becoming unmanageable (both are untrue – we will address in a future blog).
It is as if they are saying “How dare energy companies and their lobbyists have the nerve to ask questions about how government policy will affect their interests! How dare Mollie Johnson suggest questions concerning a policy’s impact on affordability might be appropriate for government officials to consider before advancing the policy!”
To the environmental activists and their friends at the National Observer, the very act of daring to raise one’s hand and ask about the radical green agenda that is Net Zero by 2050, to ask ‘how much will it cost?’, is simply unacceptable. Indeed, to the activists, raising such questions is so unacceptable that asking such questions should be forbidden.
And these green propagandists consistently fall back on the usual apocalyptic rhetoric about a “climate emergency” or “climate crisis”.
ADM Mollie Johnson of NRCan appears to be doing what you would hope a public servant would do: asking how much a policy will cost the taxpayer. Thank you Ms. Johnson!
But in this time of ideological green fervor, in the cult of climate action, you cannot dare ask such heretical and vulgar questions as how policy will affect the economic well-being of citizens.
I encourage all of our readers to do just that. Call your local utility, or bank or insurance company, or a mining company, or any other company that is currently espousing a commitment to Net Zero by 2050 – and ask them how much it will cost. How much will it cost in terms of direct taxpayer dollars? How many jobs will this cost? How much in lost tax revenue will it cost the government when the jobs are gone?
My bet is they can’t answer your question.
They don’t know.
Yet they still commit to Net Zero by 2050.
Net Zero Part 4 will be published on Todayville Thursday, June 10
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
The executive order marks a decisive pivot in US digital asset policy.
President Donald Trump took a bold step on Thursday by signing an executive order that establishes a cryptocurrency working group, fulfilling a key campaign pledge made during his appeal to digital asset advocates and also banning controversial Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).
This newly established advisory body is set to take on a pivotal role in shaping US policy on digital assets. Its responsibilities include collaborating with Congress to draft cryptocurrency legislation and advising on the development of a proposed bitcoin reserve. Additionally, the council will work to align efforts across federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Treasury Department.
One of its more unique tasks will involve assessing the feasibility of creating and managing a national repository of digital assets. According to the executive order, these assets could potentially include cryptocurrencies confiscated during federal law enforcement operations.
On the same day, Trump issued another executive order banning the development and use of CBDCs within the United States.
The order explicitly forbids any attempt to “establish, issue, or promote CBDCs within the jurisdiction of the United States or abroad.” Trump justified the decision by warning of the risks posed by CBDCs, including threats to financial stability, personal privacy, and US sovereignty.
Often referred to as centrally-controlled “digital dollars,” CBDCs would be issued by the Federal Reserve and function as digital equivalents of physical currency, potentially granting the central bank expanded authority over monetary flows. Proponents argue that such a system could promote financial inclusion and provide tools for combating illicit activities.
CBDCs have raised significant concern among privacy advocates, who warn they could give governments unprecedented control over financial transactions. Unlike cash, which allows for anonymous and untraceable exchanges, CBDCs would operate on digital platforms managed by central banks.
Every transaction could be monitored, recorded, and tied to individual identities, creating a potential for constant financial surveillance. This capability could erode personal privacy, enabling authorities to track spending habits, purchasing behaviors, and even location data in real-time. For individuals who value financial autonomy and confidentiality, the prospect of such pervasive oversight is deeply troubling.
Additionally, CBDCs could serve as tools for censorship and control.
Governments or central banks could theoretically restrict or block transactions they deem undesirable, limiting financial freedom. For example, payments to politically sensitive causes, organizations, or individuals could be flagged or prohibited. In extreme scenarios, a CBDC system might even allow authorities to freeze assets or impose punitive financial measures against dissenters.
There is no realistic chance the legislation will pass before the next election. Despite this, the CRA is pushing ahead with enforcement of the tax as if it is already law.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is filing a legal challenge today to stop the Canada Revenue Agency from enforcing a capital gains tax increase that has not been approved by Parliament.
“The government has no legal right to enforce this tax hike because it has not received legislative approval by Parliament,” said Devin Drover, CTF General Counsel. “This tax grab violates the fundamental principle of no taxation without representation. That’s why we are asking the courts to put an immediate stop to this bureaucratic overreach.”
The CTF is representing Debbie Vorsteveld, a resident of Mapleton, Ontario. Last year, she and her husband, Willem, sold a property that included a secondary home. They had rented the secondary home to their adult children, but had to sell it when their kids were ready to move on. The CRA says the Vorstevelds must pay higher capital gains taxes under the proposed capital gains increase or face financial penalties.
The CTF is seeking urgent relief from the Federal Court to block the CRA’s enforcement of the proposed tax increase. In its application, the CTF argues the tax increase violates the rule of law and is unconstitutional.
The government passed a ways and means motion for the tax increase last year but failed to introduce, debate, pass, or proclaim the necessary legislation into law.
Parliament is now prorogued until March 24, 2025, and opposition parties have all pledged to bring down the Liberal government. As a result, there is no realistic chance the legislation will pass before the next election. Despite this, the CRA is pushing ahead with enforcement of the tax as if it is already law.
A new report from the C.D. Howe Institute shows the capital gains tax increase will result in 414,000 fewer jobs and shrink Canada’s GDP by nearly $90 billion.
“The undemocratic capital gains tax hike will blow a huge hole in Canada’s economy and punishes people saving for their retirement, entrepreneurs, doctors and Canadian workers,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “It’s Parliament’s responsibility to approve tax increases before they’re imposed, not unelected government bureaucrats.
“The CRA must immediately halt its plans to enforce this unapproved tax hike, which threatens to undemocratically take billions from Canadians and cripple our economy.”
