Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

BC voters ditching climate crisis for promise to unlock natural resource development

Published

10 minute read

From Energy Now

The LNG Canada facility under construction in Kitimat, British Columbia

Climate Goals Face B.C. Election Backlash in Home of Greenpeace – B.C. Conservatives Have Upended Race With Focus on Unlocking Natural Resource Development

An unlikely political upstart in Canada’s third-largest province, expelled from his previous party for climate science skepticism, is within striking distance of winning power with promises to ditch environmental targets and unleash natural-resources development.

The surge in support for John Rustad’s Conservative Party of British Columbia ahead of the Oct. 19 election may have been helped by the popularity of the unaffiliated federal Conservatives. Victory would add to the roster of right-leaning premiers at odds with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government in Ottawa.

A Conservative government in BC might mark a bigger shift than anywhere else in the country. The province is famous for environmentalism — Vancouver is the birthplace of Greenpeace and home to Canada’s most famous climate activist, David Suzuki. David Eby, the current premier, unsuccessfully opposed the expansion of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline, and back in 2008 the province brought in one of North America’s first carbon taxes.

Although polls favor Eby’s left-leaning New Democratic Party, it’s close, and a spread between pollsters suggests the result remains unpredictable.

The public has endured inflation and strained local services, slower growth in an economy dragged by higher interest rates and lower exports, and a government that’s gone from surplus to a record C$9 billion ($6.5 billion) deficit. British Columbia, once rated AAA by S&P Global Ratings, has suffered three credit rating downgrades in three years.

Conservatives Have Surged in BC Polls

British Columbia’s Conservatives vault official opposition in election surprise

Source: Research Co.

The ruling NDP — whose origins lie in labor unions — is parrying criticism of its own mixed seven-year record in office. It’s running on blunting the cost of living with subsidies, tying the minimum wage to inflation, taxing home speculation, blocking Airbnb Inc.-style short-term rentals and using hydrocarbon revenues for a “clean economy transition fund.”

Rustad’s rise is also a stunning tale of revenge. The longtime representative of Nechako Lakes — a district 600 miles north of Vancouver in BC’s deep interior — was kicked out of the BC Liberal Party in 2022 on his birthday after sharing a social media post questioning carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate. He took over the BC Conservative Party, then a marginal force in provincial politics. Before long it had leapfrogged his old party in the polls.

Acrimonious talks to merge the two groups failed, and by August the previously formidable Liberals — which had rebranded as BC United — gave up, withdrawing from the election in an effort to unite voters against the NDP.

Unlocking Natural Resources

In an interview with Bloomberg, Rustad said he won’t cut social, health or education spending — a majority of the budget. He’s also promising tax cuts and plans to deepen the deficit to more than C$10 billion in his first year.

His plan to balance BC’s budget over eight years is based on an optimistic 5.4% average GDP growth rate to 2030 — more than double the average rate of the past five years — fueled by axing CleanBC, the NDP plan to cut BC’s emissions 40% by 2030. Rustad said that would save as much as C$2.5 billion in government spending, then bring in billions in extra revenue by unlocking industrial projects.

Foremost among them is LNG Canada, a new liquefied natural gas project in the remote north that the federal government said may be worth C$40 billion — possibly the largest private investment in the country’s history. There’s a plan to double its size, but it’s proving tricky to power with BC’s zero-emission hydroelectricity instead of fossil fuels, because it would need a new transmission line, with one previous cost estimate at C$3 billion.

Not a problem if looser rules let them burn gas.

“In British Columbia, we could stop everything we do, and by next year the increases from China and India will swamp anything that we’ve done,” Rustad told Bloomberg. “So my perspective is we need to make sure we’re looking after people. And so for a changing climate, we need to be able to adapt to it.”

When he appeared on climate-skeptic Canadian influencer Jordan Peterson’s podcast, Rustad said: “How is it that we’ve convinced carbon-based beings that carbon is a problem?”

Conservatives Gain In Tight BC Election Race As Rival Withdraws
John Rustad Photographer: Ethan Cairns/Bloomberg

Rustad also talked up billions in extra revenue from streamlining mine permits — one of BC’s oldest industries and more prominent in the remoter parts of the province he hails from.

Asked about BC’s rural vote, Rustad says: “There’s no question, the NDP completely ignored it.”

Rustad also wants to ditch BC’s carbon tax to cut costs for businesses and consumers. That’s also the top rallying cry for federal Conservatives, who are trying to force a “carbon tax election” to topple Trudeau. Provincial carbon taxes are federally back-stopped, so to banish the tax Rustad would need the Conservative Party of Canada to take power.

“The top-of-mind issues that people are frustrated about are inflation and the cost of living, housing and health care,” Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “And what we’ve seen is that the federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been able to connect those public concerns with the carbon tax. It’s given them something that they can focus their frustrations on.”

Even the climate-conscious NDP has pivoted away from defending the carbon tax to pledging they would repeal it for consumers — but unlike the Conservatives, they would shift the burden to corporate “polluters.”

In his plan to speed up business, Rustad has also taken issue with BC’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act because it causes “friction”. It requires government to seek Indigenous people’s “free, prior and informed consent” to implement measures that may affect BC’s more than 200 Indigenous communities.

Rustad’s Conservatives include Indigenous candidates, and he talks about supporting economic reconciliation — the material, financial side of redressing Canada’s colonial injustices. But some First Nations leaders have called his platform “dangerous” for pitting British Columbians against each other.

Relentless Controversies

Rustad’s biggest weak point may be the controversial things said my members of his team, leading to relentless stories since they’ve been thrust into the spotlight.

Despite his dry, phlegmatic style, the same goes for Rustad himself. He’s said he regretted getting the “so-called” Covid-19 vaccine, and a clip showed him seeming to go along with an activist’s concept of “Nuremberg 2.0” — trials for officials who oversaw pandemic health measures. Rustad apologized and said he “misunderstood” the question.

Rival party staffers gave out BC Conservative-branded tinfoil hats after a candidate’s shared posts described 5G wireless signals as a weapon, according to local media. She was ousted, but another candidate who claimed vaccines can cause a type of AIDS remains part of the caucus.

Another apologized last week for posts including one in 2015 calling Palestinians “inbred walking, talking, breathing time bombs.”

In communities like Metro Vancouver, some of the most diverse in North America, that kind of thing may jeopardize Rustad’s path to power.

But Rustad is also being cheered on by what Harrison described as an “accidental collection of voters who share frustration with the cost of living, the cost of housing, emergency room closures” — which could span from suburban families who judge the economy isn’t working for them to BC’s wealthiest, including billionaire Lululemon Athletica Inc founder Chip Wilson.

If Rustad pulls it off, his unorthodox strategy to turn one of Canada’s progressive strongholds conservative will reverberate with those fighting federal politics in the nation’s capital 3,000 miles away.

Business

Chainsaws and Scalpels: How Governments Choose

Published on

The Audit

 David Clinton

Javier Milei in Argentina, Musk and Ramaswamy in the US.. What does DOGE in Canada look like?

Under their new(ish) president Javier Milei, Argentina cut deeply and painfully into their program spending to address a catastrophic economic crisis. And they seem to have enjoyed some early success. With Elon Musk now primed to play a similar role in the coming Trump administration in the U.S., the obvious question is: how might such an approach play out in Canada?

Sure. We’re not suffering from headaches on anything like the scale of Argentina’s – the debt we’ve run up so far isn’t in the same league as the long-term spending going on in South America. But ignoring the problems we do face can’t be an option. Given that the annual interest payments on our existing national debt are $11.7 billion (which equals seven percent of total expenditures), simply balancing the budget won’t be enough.

The underlying assumption powering the question is that we live in a world of constraints. There just isn’t enough money to buy everything we might want, so we need to both prioritize and become more efficient. It’s about figuring out what can no longer be justified – even if it does provide some value – and what’s just plain wasteful.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Some of this may seem obvious. After all, when there are First Nations reserves without clean water and millions of Canadians without access to primary care physicians, how can we justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars funding arts projects that virtually no one will ever discover, much less consume?

Apparently not everyone sees things that way. Large governments operate by reacting to political, social, and chaos-driven incentives. Sometimes those incentives lead to rational choices, and sometimes not. But mega-sized organizations tend to lack the self-awareness and capacity to easily change direction.

And some basic problems have no obvious solutions. As I’ve written, there’s a real possibility that all the money in the world won’t buy the doctors, nurses, and integrated systems we need. And “all the money in the world” is obviously not on the table. So the well-meaning bureaucrat might conclude that if you’re not going to completely solve the big problems, you might as well try to manage them while investing in other areas, too.

Still, I think it’s worth imagining how things might look if we could launch a comprehensive whole-of-government program review.

How Emergency Cuts Might Play Out

Imagine the federal government defaulted on its debt servicing payments and lost access to capital markets. That’s not such an unlikely scenario. There would suddenly be a lot less money available to spend, and some programs would have to be shut down. Protecting emergency and core services would require making fast – and smart – decisions.

We would need to take a long, hard look at this important enumeration of government expenditures. There probably wouldn’t be enough time to bridge the gap by looking for dozens of less-critical million-dollar programs. We would need to find some big-ticket items fast.

Our first step might be to pause or restructure larger ongoing payments, like projects funded through the Canada Infrastructure Bank (total annual budget: $3.45 billion). Private investors might pick up some of the slack, or some projects could simply go into hibernation. “Other interest costs” (total annual budget: $4.6 billion) could also be restructured.

Reducing equalization payments (total annual budget: $25.2 billion) and territorial financing (total budget: $5.2 billion) might also be necessary. This would, of course, spark parallel crises at lower levels of government. Similarly, grants to settle First Nations claims (total budget: $6 billion) managed by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada would also be at least temporarily cut.

All that would be deeply painful and trigger long-term negative consequences.

But there’s a far better approach that could be just as effective and a whole lot less painful:

What an All-of-Government Review Might Discover

Planning ahead would allow you the luxury of targeting spending that – in some cases at least – wouldn’t even be missed. Think about programs that were announced five, ten, even thirty years ago, perhaps to satisfy some passing fad or political need. They might even have made sense decades ago when they were created…but that was decades ago when they were created.

Here’s how that’ll work. When you read through the program and transfer spending items on that government expenditures page (and there are around 1,200 of those items), the descriptions all point to goals that seem reasonable enough. But there are some important questions that should be asked about each of them:

  • When did these programs begin?
  • What specific activities do they involve?
  • What have they accomplished over the past 12 months?
  • Is their effectiveness trending up or down?
  • Are they employing efficiency best-practices used in the private sector?
  • Who’s tasked with monitoring changes?
  • Where are their reports published?

To show you what I mean, here are some specific transfer or program line items and their descriptions:

Department of Employment and Social Development

  • Workforce Development Agreements ($722 million)
  • Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Transformation Initiative ($374 million)
  • Payments to provinces, territories, municipalities, other public bodies, organizations, groups, communities, employers and individuals for the provision of training and/or work experience, the mobilization of community resources, and human resource planning and adjustment measures necessary for the efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market ($856 million)

Department of Industry

  • Contributions under the Strategic Innovation Fund ($2.4 billion)

Department of Citizenship and Immigration

  • Settlement Program ($1.13 billion)

Department of Indigenous Services

  • Contributions to provide income support to on-reserve residents and Status Indians in the Yukon Territory ($1.05 billion). Note that, as of the 2021 Census, there were 9,150 individuals with North American Indigenous origins in Yukon. Assuming the line item is accurately described, that means the income support came to $114,987/person (not per household; per person).

Each one of those (and many, many others like them) could be case studies in operational efficiency and effectiveness. Or not. But there’s no way we could know that without serious research.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share The Audit

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Audit, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

 

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

DOGE seeks ‘super high-IQ’ people willing to work 80 hours a week for free

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President-elect Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency is seeking “super high-IQ” people to work more than 80 hours a week for free.

DOGE co-leader Elon Musk, who is the CEO of Tesla and is one of the richest people in the world, is working with entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to find top talent to cut wasteful spending, overburdensome regulations and re-structure federal agencies. Neither Musk or Ramaswamy will be paid for their work.

“We are very grateful to the thousands of Americans who have expressed interest in helping us at DOGE,” the new advisery group said in a social media post. “We don’t need more part-time idea generators. We need super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries willing to work 80+ hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting.”

Candidates can send their resumes to the DOGE account on X.

“Elon & Vivek will review the top 1% of applicants,” according to the post.

In a separate post, Musk said the work will be challenging and won’t be paid.

“Indeed, this will be tedious work, make lots of enemies & compensation is zero,” Musk wrote.

The department’s acronym, DOGE, is a nod to Musk’s favorite cryptocurrency, dogecoin. Trump said the new group will pave the way for his administration to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulation, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.”

Trump laid out lofty goals for DOGE in his announcement this week.

“It will become, potentially, ‘The Manhatten Project,’ of our time,” Trump’s announcement said. “Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time.”

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the group welcomes DOGE to the challenge.

“Given our cumbersome bureaucracy and large fiscal imbalances, the effort is long overdue,” she said. “Regardless of political views, we should all want the federal government to spend scarce dollars wisely.”

MacGuineas said the outside group’s work could help restore trust in the government.

“An aggressive effort to reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiencies could save billions or even trillions of dollars over a decade and could help improve the public’s faith in government,” she said.

MacGuineas urged DOGE to look at the full budget.

“Such an effort should look at all parts of the budget, especially in the areas of health care, national defense, and spending through the tax code, and it should look beyond just cutting fraud and reducing bureaucracy to also identify places where the taxpayer is not getting the best value for their dollar,” she said. “Federal health care spending, in particular, is rife with overpayments and inefficiencies that offer the opportunity to substantially lower costs without meaningfully reducing quality or access to care.”

Social Security and federal health care programs, specifically Medicare, deserve special attention, MacGuineas said.

Since fiscal year 2003, improper payment estimates by executive branch agencies have totaled about $2.7 trillion, including $236 billion for fiscal year 2023. Improper payments have declined in recent years, but remain a stubborn challenge for many federal agencies. Improper payments are payments that shouldn’t have been made or were made in the wrong amount.

Most of the improper payments come from five federal programs: Medicare, comprising three programs ($51 billion); Medicaid ($50 billion); the Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance – Federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance ($44 billion); the Department of the Treasury’s Earned Income Tax Credit ($22 billion); the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program Loan Forgiveness ($19 billion).

MacGuineas said DOGE should take a bipartisan outlook.

“Importantly, the process will need to be as bipartisan as possible in order to help with the deliverability and implementation of ideas,” she said. “The recommendations will need Congressional buy-in, further emphasizing the need for this to be an effort reaching across the aisle and leaving all options on the table to address our fiscal imbalances.”

Congress has run a deficit every year since 2001. In the past 50 years, the federal government has ended with a fiscal year-end budget surplus four times, most recently in 2001.

DOGE also plans to go after fraud at the federal level. The Government Accountability Office, which serves as the research arm of Congress, estimated fraud losses cost taxpayers between $233 billion and $521 billion annually, in a report in April. The fraud estimate’s range represents 3% to 7% of average federal obligations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X