Economy
Canada is not a serious country… Danielle Smith
From Danielle Smith
I read an infographic that said Canada has bought $13 billion worth of petroleum products from Russia since 2000 – we buy from them at a rate of $550 million a year. What the hell are we doing?
The situation for Ukraine looks very grave indeed. Most commentators thought Vladimir Putin was going to “liberate” the two Russia friendly break off republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. What a surprise to the world to find Russian soldiers in Kyiv among other incursions.
It is pretty clear the Russian leader intends to take all of Ukraine.
But we also must not be naïve about Putin’s aspirations. A Polish friend of mine – who remembers watching Russian tanks roll into her town outside her street when she was seven years old – is under no illusions about how far Putin intends to go.
She fully expects Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Kazakhstan and possibly Moldova to be next. She believes Putin wants to assemble the Soviet Union 2.0, with the ultimate aim of controlling the energy supply to the rest of the world.
So how does this play out?
Just like you I’ve been trying to sort through the conflicting media coverage to find out what is really going on. If indeed there are Ukraine substates that genuinely want to be independent, I don’t have a particular problem with that. As I said in a Locals post, post WWII the powers that be made a lot of blunders redrawing the map of Europe and the Middle East, cramming people together under a national flag even if they hated each other, so perhaps some aspirations for independence are legitimate. But it’s clear that Putin’s aspiration goes far beyond Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. It appears now that he wants the whole thing. But why?
First off, though it’s sad to say, there hasn’t been much honest reporting about Ukraine and Russia starting in the Trump years so almost everything you read will be through the lens of people who hate Trump (who clearly understood Putin’s strength and saw no need to antagonize him) and Biden (whose family had strange dealings in Ukraine no one wants to talk about).
In addition there is so much propaganda floating around the web I’d be reluctant to retweet any stories of “bravery” unless they’ve been verified. Here’s a good summary of the lies so far: The Ghost of Kiev, the woman with the sunflower seeds, footage of things being shot down or blown up – so far most of these stories are outright falsehoods or images from video games or prior conflicts. The “Russian Warship Go Fuck Yourself” holdouts was partly true: yes they said it, but they didn’t die in a missile attack. They were all apprehended and taken alive.
So know that you have to read everything knowing that the writer is trying to manipulate you. I’m just trying to figure out what is actually going on. It’s not easy.
To that end…
The mainstream view as reported on BBC, is that Russia feels threatened by a modern Ukraine and irrationally believes it has been taken over by extremists and Nazis. I guess calling one’s political opponents “Nazis” is the new all-purpose smear being used by Russian Presidents and Canadian Prime Ministers alike to justify war measures. In any case, this analysis left me unsatisfied as it seemed a bit shallow and one-sided like so much of MSM these days.
Social media isn’t doing much better, and the commentariat seems to think this is the time to practice their best pop culture zingers. It’s kind of humiliating to read this piece that calls out the Harry Potter references, the self-care links and the demands to “deplatform” Russia: “If the West saw Ukraine and its cause as truly important, something worth paying a price to assist, they would sanction Russia’s energy sector. But they do not (even the Globalist American Empire must sometimes face reality). So instead, we get a parade of symbolic sanctions, passive-aggressive gestures of anger and hostility. In fact, the tactics the GAE uses against Russia — social ostracisim, deplatforming, and performative public condemnation — are the same feminine tools that it uses domestically to ruins the lives of people who use a politically incorrect word or donate to the wrong protest.” Ouch.
Here’s a video from a podcaster imbedded in Kyiv who says openly, “you’ll probably think I’m a Russian stooge” so he may indeed be a Russian stooge, but he explains why he thinks Russia (so far) has been restrained in its attack. He believes Ukrainians are fleeing because Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is endangering them, by putting Kalashnikovs in the hands of untrained civilians who are going to be killed when confronted by professional Russian soldiers, and mandating military service for every man aged 18 to 60. He does not believe the Russians intend to cause mass casualties or destruction, but that they will kill if someone is pointing a gun at them, which will allow more reports depicting Putin’s viciousness.
He also explains how important Kyiv is to the Russian foundational story. As far as Putin is concerned, Ukraine is Russia, and he expected to be treated as a liberator when he arrived. He also outlined the different military tactics of Russia to explain why the West is saying that Russia is losing. When the US enters a country they do scorched earth and blow everything up – roads, bridges, electrical grids, water plants and so on. The fact that Putin is not doing that is being perceived as weakness. But if Putin wants Ukraine to be part of Russia permanently, it would make no sense to destroy everything. That doesn’t engender good feelings. Putin wants a puppet regime in Ukraine friendly to Russia’s interests – he doesn’t want to raze the joint or blow it smithereens.
Finally, this piece helped put a lot into perspective for me. “Ukraine’s Deadly Gamble” by Lee Smith has the ring of truth about it. He depicts it thus: “…(T)he Ukrainians made a geopolitical blunder that statesmen will study for years to come: A buffer state had staked its future on a distant power that had simply seen it as an instrument to annoy its powerful neighbor with no attachment to any larger strategic concept that it was willing to support.” They were a pawn in the game to help discredit Trump with the Russian collusion story, then when Trump started poking around to find out what the Bidens were up to in Ukraine, they played a willing role to aid his impeachment. Now they find out the Americans just aren’t that into them after all.
In the end, mid-size powers sleeping next to giants have to realize that their continued ability to remain independent is measured by whether they are perceived as antagonistic to the giant’s interests. If the situation was reversed – if Canada started cozying up to Russia and helping to sabotage US presidents to curry favour with Russia – I don’t think it would go well for us either. Maybe not full scale invasion, but the Americans hold life or death power over our economy so it wouldn’t be a wise move. Sad that regular citizens become the collateral damage in the decisions of their elected leaders. But that’s why elections matter.
If Canada was a serious grown-up country with a serious grown-up leader we’d be able to say “we can help” without being laughed off the world stage. We can help, in a very practical way. We can help wean the world off Russian oil and natural gas. We could ask Quebec to stop thinking only about itself for a change and reverse its announced ban on oil and natural gas extraction. Trudeau could declare multiple projects in the global interest and work with First Nations partners to complete Transmountain Pipeline and build Northern Gateway, work with Biden to build Keystone XL and with the provinces of QB and NB to build Energy East. He would use his powers under the Constitution to tell Quebec they can not block LNG Export from Saguenay, and he’d post a sentry of protectors for Coastal Gas Link to make sure it gets completed too.But look at this silliness: “despite the fact that 18 LNG export terminals have been proposed in Canada over the years, and 24 long-term LNG export licenses have been granted since 2011, a grand total of zero have been built.” We have failed the world with Trudeau’s anti-carbon-dioxide obsession. Let’s not forget it.
Canada is key to energy security and affordability for North America and our European allies, and we could hit Russia where it hurts. If we wanted to be a meaningful player on the international stage we would embrace it.
Instead we have a federal Environment Minister who made his name scaling the CN Tower and Ralph Klein’s house to oppose fossil fuels, and we’ve joined the Build Back Better brigade pretending the world can survive on wind turbines and solar panels alone.
Canada is not a serious place and our friends in Eastern Europe are now paying the price for it. Such a tragedy.
For more from Daniel Smith
|
|
|
|
|
Business
Ottawa’s emissions cap another headache for consumers and business
From Resource Works
Ottawa’s emissions cap for oil and gas aims to cut emissions but risks raising costs for consumers and disrupting industry stability.
Ottawa has brought down a new emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, with a mandate to reduce emissions by 35 percent from 2019 levels by 2030 to support the federal government’s climate targets. While the federal government is celebrating the cap as a big step towards a more sustainable future, it is going to make life harder for consumers and businesses alike.
This cap is coming in at a time when the oil sector is finally gaining greater stability due to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), and the mandate would undermine that progress and press greater costs upon households and industries that are already adjusting to high inflation and uncertainty in world markets.
Now that TMX is operational, Canada’s oil producers have grown their access to international markets, most importantly in Asia and the West Coast of the United States. Much-needed price stability now exists for Western Canadian Select (WCS), cutting the discount against the U.S. West Texas Intermediate benchmark, enabling Canadian oil to compete more effectively.
Newfound stability means that Canadian consumers and businesses have benefited from slightly lower prices, and that industry has grown less dependent on a more limited domestic demand. However, Ottawa’s emissions cap does threaten this new balance, and the sector now has to deal with compliance costs that could be passed down to consumers.
In order to meet the cap’s targets, Canadian oil producers must heavily invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which is costly but essential. Major CCS projects include Shell’s Quest and the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, both of which are already operational.
The Pathways Alliance is a coalition of six major oil sands companies and is preparing to invest in one of the world’s largest networks for carbon storage. These efforts are crucial for reducing emissions, despite requiring vast amounts of capital.
Those in the industry are worrying that the emissions cap will push resources away from production and, instead, towards compliance, adding costs that will be borne by fuel prices and other consumer products.
Ottawa has portrayed the cap as an essential measure for meeting the federal government’s climate goals, with Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson labeling it “technically achievable.” Nonetheless, industry players argue that the timeline does not align with the practicalities of scaling CCS and other strategies aimed at decarbonizing.
Strathcona Resources executive chairman Adam Waterous pointed out the “stroke-of-the-pen” risk, in which shifting political landscapes imperil ongoing investments in carbon capture. Numerous oil producers feel that without certainty in carbon price stability, Ottawa’s cap will result in an unstable business environment that will push investment away from production.
Business leaders do not share the federal government’s optimism about the cap and see it as a one-sided approach that fails to reckon with market realities. The Pathways Alliance, which includes companies like Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural Resources, has been frustrated in its multiple attempts to get federal support to fund its $16.5-billion CCS project.
Rather than imposing these new limits, energy industry advocates argue that the government should provide targeted incentives like “carbon contracts for difference” (CCfDs), which help to stabilize carbon credit prices and reduce financial risk among investors. These measures would enable the energy sector to decarbonize without putting a greater burden on consumers.
The cap’s timing also raises concerns about the Canada-U.S. relationship. Canada has traditionally been a stable supplier of energy and helps to bolster U.S. energy security. However, as the U.S. increases its reliance on Canadian oil, the cap could disrupt this trade relationship. Lowered production levels would leave the economies of both the U.S. and Canada vulnerable, potentially disrupting energy prices and supply stability.
For households across Canada, the emissions cap could mean further financial strain. The higher costs of compliance passed to oil producers will mean higher prices at the pump and more expensive heating costs at a time when Canadian consumers are already struggling financially.
Businesses will also face increasing operating costs, which will be passed down to consumers via more expensive goods and services. Furthermore, higher costs and reduced production will erode Canada’s competitive advantage in the global energy market, slowing economic growth and risking job losses in the energy sector.
So, while Ottawa can laud its emissions cap as a necessary action on the climate, the implications for consumers and businesses are tremendous. Working with industry to find pragmatic, collaborative solutions is how Ottawa can avoid creating more financial burdens for Canadians.
Business
Claiming the Carbon Tax is Not Inflationary Defies Belief – So Do Media Reports About Inflation
From EnergyNow.ca
By Jim Warren
Back in March 2019, the average price for a pound of lean ground beef at five major chain grocery outlets in Regina was $4.71. In September 2024 lean ground at the five big chain outlets averaged $7.90 — a 68% increase over the past five years… these price increases are a far cry from the official statistic for accumulated inflation of 21% over the same period.
Kudos to the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA). They have provided us with some valuable insight into the inflationary effects of Canada’s carbon tax.
This past August, the CTA published a brief to the federal government which among other things called for a moratorium on the carbon tax for diesel fuel.
In commenting on the brief, CTA president Stephen Laskowski said, “The carbon tax on diesel fuel is currently having zero impact on the environment and is only serving to needlessly drive up costs for every good purchased by Canadian families and businesses. The carbon tax needs to be repealed from diesel fuel until viable propulsion alternatives are available for the industry and the Canadian supply chain to choose from.”
The CTA estimates that as of 2024 the carbon tax on diesel adds an extra cost for long-haul truck operators of $15,000 to $20,000 or around 6% of per truck in annual operating costs. The brief to government claims a small trucking business with five trucks, “is seeing between $75,000 and $100,000 in extra costs due to the carbon tax.”
Obviously, truckers striving to remain solvent will be doing their utmost to pass carbon tax costs on to their customers. If the cost of the tax can’t be recouped by some trucking companies, we can bet there will be fewer of them operating over the coming years. As Laskowksi said, the carbon tax increased the cost of virtually every product transported by truck—which means pretty well every physical good consumers purchase.
In light of the political beating the Liberals have been taking over the carbon tax, the Trudeau government has taken a tiny feeble step toward relieving the pressure on businesses. In October 2024 federal finance minister Chrystia Freeland announced the government’s intention to provide carbon tax rebates to businesses with fewer than 500 employees. That means many of Canada’s trucking companies will be eligible to recoup some of the carbon tax they have been paying since fiscal 2019-2020. Freeland says the cheques will be in the mail this December.
It sounds okay until you look at the fine print.
The payments will not reflect the amount of fuel a business uses or how much carbon tax it has paid over the past five years. The rebates will be based on the number of people a company employs and will be paid only in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies. An accounting business with 10 employees will receive the same carbon tax rebate as a small trucking business with 10 employees. A CBC news report pulled the following example from Freeland’s press release, “A business in Ontario with 10 employees can expect to receive $4,010…”
Freeland boasted, “These are real, significant sums of money. They’re going to make a big difference to Canadian small business.”
Freeland’s statement is patently false when it comes to trucking companies.
Let’s say that the 10 employee business is a long-haul trucking company based in Ontario. After paying the carbon tax on five or more trucks for five years, the business would receive a paltry $4,010 rebate. That light dusting of sugar won’t make the carbon tax any more palatable to the trucking industry. According to the CTA’s estimates, if the 10 employee long-haul trucking firm had just five trucks the carbon tax will have cost it approximately $400,000 in operating costs over the past five years.
Carbon tax costs are not the only inflation related frustration affecting Canadians. The way the federal government and its friends in the media describe inflation presents people with a warped view of what is happening to the cost of living. Media reports on inflation rarely reflect the lived experience of people trying to pay the mortgage, feed their families and drive to work.
Governments, and their media apologists, in both Canada and the US have been taking victory laps over the past year because the rate of inflation has decreased. It’s as though people have nothing to worry about because the cost of living this year isn’t increasing as fast as it was last year. Changes in the inflation rate may be important for statistical purposes but they don’t reflect reality for people who have been coping with increases in inflation over several years. Most people measure the difficulties caused by inflation by comparing how much more things cost today than they did three to five years ago. The figure regular civilians, as opposed to statisticians, use to assess increases in the cost of living is accumulated inflation. However, we still need to be cautious about the accumulated inflation rate that we get when using government data.
If we calculate the rate of accumulated inflation based on official annualized inflation rates from 2019 up to the midpoint of 2024. The accumulated increase over that five year period is around 21%. And, it is true that this number better reflects people’s perception of inflation than a statistical comparison indicating the rate of inflation fell from 3.9 % in 2023 to 2.61% by the mid-point of 2024. The problem is the 21% number still does not accurately reflect increases in the cost of many necessary goods and services that are impacting households. This is why according to political polls voters in Canada and the US aren’t buying government propaganda when it comes to inflation.
The economy, and by extension, the high cost of living was a major issue in the recent US federal election campaign. The Democrats did not do themselves any favours claiming Bidenomics had wrestled inflation to the ground simply because it wasn’t increasing as fast as it was a year ago. A large number of voters in the US embraced former US president Lyndon Johnson’s maxim, “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”
But wait, it gets worse. The basket of goods and services the Canadian government uses to calculate the cost of living index and the inflation rate fails to identify high increases in the prices for specific household essentials including many grocery staples. Similarly, official calculations for statistically weighted national average consumption of various products used to calculate the Consumer Price Index are skewed in favour of big urban centres. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are over represented. There is no way that the average annual consumption of gasoline for a household in downtown Montreal comes anywhere close to the amount used in most of Canada where public transit is scarce and distances are great. The result is the official accumulated inflation rate fails to show what many people are experiencing in most regions of the country.
Here is a good example of how published statistics don’t reflect the inflation shock that consumers experience at the grocery store. Back in March 2019, the average price for a pound of lean ground beef at five major chain grocery outlets in Regina was $4.71. In September 2024 lean ground at the five big chain outlets averaged $7.90 — a 68% increase over the past five years. The price of rib eye steak increased by even more. Rib eyes averaged $14.91 per pound at the five stores in Regina in March 2019. This September, the average price for rib eye steak was $29.40 – a 97% increase over five years. Obviously, these price increases are a far cry from the official statistic for accumulated inflation of 21% over the same period. (FYI: the data presented here was derived from Beef Business magazine published by the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association. Each bimonthly edition of Beef Business features a retail beef price check)
Assuming we can find similar rates of accumulated inflation for other staples like dairy products and fresh vegetables it’s no wonder smart shoppers have been incensed over what’s going on with grocery prices and the cost of living (not to mention price increases for fuel, rents house prices and mortgage interest). Consumers have discovered today’s prices of $6.50 for a four litre jug of milk and $7.00 for a pound of butter aren’t going to be reduced simply because the rate of inflation has decreased form 3.69% to 2.61% over the past year. Using history as our guide, with the exception of rare periods of deflation such as the depression of the 1930s, it is unlikely we’ll see the price increases of the past few years come down other than for sales or loss leader strategies. And, while a 72 cent dollar might boost sales for some of our exports, it will add more than 25% to the cost of imported fruit and vegetables this winter,
Furthermore, the impacts of inflation are being more severely felt by Canadians today than they would have been a decade ago. This is because our per capita national income (using GDP as a proxy for national income) has been shrinking since 2014. That was the year oil prices fell into an eight year depression and the last full year before Justin Trudeau became Prime minister.
According to a 2024 Fraser Institute Bulletin authored by Alex Whelan, Milagros Placios and Lawrence Shembri, “Canadians have been getting poorer relative to residents of other countries in the OECD [a club of mostly rich countries]. From 2002 to 2014, Canadian income growth, as measured by GDP per capita, roughly kept pace with the rest of the OECD. From 2014 to 2022, however, Canada’s position declined sharply, ranking third lowest among 30 countries for average growth over the period.”
Canada’s per capita GDP/national income for 2024 is projected to be $54,866.05. According Whelan, Placios and Shembri, that is lower than per capita national income in the US, UK, New Zealand and Austrailia.
Only one US state, Mississippi, the poorest state in the union, has a per capita GDP/national income less than Canada’s. Mississippi’s total is $53,061. Other states considered poor by US standards such as Alabama and Arkansas have higher per capita GDPs than Canada. On average, Canadians have increasingly less money with which to buy more expensive goods and services.
The challenges Canadians have faced as a result of the high cost of living have coincided with the eight plus years that Justin Trudeau has been prime minister. The decline in per capita national income also occurred under Trudeau’s watch—in conjunction with Liberal policies designed to stifle growth in Canada’s petroleum and natural gas industries. What did the Trudeau Liberals think would happen to growth in per capita national income after they handcuffed our single most important export industry?
In the final analysis it’s a tossup. Do we have an inflation problem or is inflation just a symptom of our Trudeau problem?
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
Popular Casino Games at 1Red
-
National2 days ago
Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election
-
Education2 days ago
Too many bad ideas imposed on classroom teachers
-
Digital Currency1 day ago
Conservatives urge Canadians to reject mandatory digital IDs proposed by Liberal gov’t
-
National2 days ago
Former BC Premier John Horgan passes away at 65
-
COVID-192 days ago
Easy Day 1 victory for Trump: Take COVID shots off schedule for kids
-
Business2 days ago
Energy Giant Wins Appeal In Landmark Lawsuit Blaming Company For Climate Change
-
DEI2 days ago
TMU Medical School Sacrifices Academic Merit to Pursue Intolerance