Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Hurricane Donald, Or Not, Canada Should Have Fixed These Problems Long Ago

Published

4 months ago

9 minute read

By Jeremy Nuttall

Jeremy Nuttall, former Toronto Star investigative reporter, argues “In recent years the U.S. has been solving problems the Canadian government wasn’t interested in.”

The nerves have been frazzled north of the border here in typical Canadian style, in the wake of the election of Donald Trump as president of ‘those’ United States. As Robin Williams famously said, Canada is like a really nice apartment over a meth lab.

And now, a significant swath of Canadians are reeling from the election of a man who has so many failings, both with his character and ethics, running the most powerful nation on Earth, with whom we share a border. It has understandably sparked a doomsday scenario in the minds of many Canadians.

But if you’re looking for a way to work out this nervous energy, here’s an idea: help put Canada’s house in order. This apartment isn’t as nice as the late Mr. Williams would have us believe.

Trump’s first term as a U.S. president saw many guardrails and civil servants prevent him from enacting his full agenda. The U.S. institutions did a decent job of mitigating damage. Oh, how nice it would be to see such gumption in the halls of power in Canada. But we don’t, and that makes this country even more susceptible than the Americans are to the whims of any nefarious would-be ruler.

In recent years, the U.S. has been solving problems the Canadian government either wasn’t interested in, didn’t know about, or, most likely, didn’t care about.

The money laundering charges against TD, taking a stand on issues related to Beijing, including foreign interference, and acting to stop slave-labor-made goods from entering the country while Ottawa did nothing are just a few examples. Say what you want about the U.S.; they forced Canada’s hand on these issues or drew attention to our country’s inaction.

But that’s likely over for now, and if you’re really worried about the perils of a Trump-style candidate ever coming to Canada, you should be aware this country has already had the kind of scandals Trump’s next presidency is predicted to bring.

What do I mean?

Foreign interference, money laundering, cronyism, and the breaking of our transparency laws are commonplace. We have an opacity problem combined with institutions less resistant to scumbaggery, and anyone with enough power and little conscience could really manipulate them if they so wished.

Examples? Sure. We can start with the government refusing to hand over all the documents as ordered by Parliament related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The Liberals’ refusal to give up such documents has had Ottawa in gridlock for months. Doesn’t that sound like something a Trump-style candidate would do?

We found out last month that, after Liberal Party supporters chastised “illegal CSIS leakers” for giving evidence the PMO chose to ignore to the media, Trudeau’s national security adviser and deputy minister of foreign affairs leaked information about India’s potential involvement in the assassination of a Sikh leader to one of the biggest U.S. media outlets going, The Washington Post. I haven’t seen any demands for an investigation into that.

We’ve also recently had the Greenbelt scandal in Ontario, the ArriveCAN scandal, and B.C.’s money laundering inquiry revealing how white this country can make your green. The RCMP, meanwhile, more frequently doesn’t release basic information about crimes, including the names of homicide victims (an important, though somber, matter of public record).

Then there’s the increasing liberties being taken with our systems of government by those in charge of it. Wab Kinew’s Manitoba NDP booted a lawyer out of caucus because someone in his firm—not even him—is defending Peter Nygard in his sexual assault trial. Kinew apologized after uproar from legal groups, but the move draws into question how important the right to a defense and its importance to the justice system is for that government.

Over in Alberta, Danielle Smith is making anti-vaxxers feel special by crafting legislation specifically protecting them from workplace vaccination mandates, in what is obviously a politically driven waste of public resources.

Last week, we learned the CRA apparently orchestrated a “witch hunt” to find out who dropped the dime on their false reimbursement scandal. And while we’re on the CRA, you may recall more than 230 CRA civil servants were fired earlier this year for falsely claiming CERB.

It goes on, and, as bad as all that is, what’s worse is how our political parties have, without any real opposition, politicized our civil service.

ATIPs and FOIs aren’t returned within legislated timelines as staffers thumb their noses at the media and public. There’s a sense of entitlement to use public funds and information for political advantage, and it’s just ignored by the public. Our government ministerial positions are more frequently filled with career ladder-climbers rather than seasoned professionals with a proven track record before entering politics.

Going back further, Jody Wilson-Raybould was tarnished for not toeing the line in the SNC Lavalin Scandal. Our former ambassador to China effectively took China’s side in the Meng Wanzhou detention over our biggest ally, saying it’d be “great for Canada” if the U.S. dropped its extradition case against her.

The same man, John McCallum, would later tell Chinese officials that their continued targeting of Canadian trade could lead to a Conservative government. Sure, it raised eyebrows, but nothing came of it.

This is your country, Canadians, and it’s open season. It doesn’t matter what party is in charge; these issues of accountability and politicization exist in all of them.

Don’t look for the media to save us. Many editors don’t see what the big deal is with all this. “It’s always been like this” is something I’ve heard way more times than I’d care to list from journalists in recent years.

Aside from a few bright lights or publications, Canadian media is either unwilling or incapable of really digging into some of the more serious issues like foreign interference, government corruption, and the lack of transparency.

The goodwill of the Canadian public and warm fuzzy feelings about this country help keep the status quo. If we ever have a serious threat from a Trump-like politician, this place is easy pickings.

We’d be wise to, instead of collectively shaking our heads and ranting about the decision made by the U.S. public, start making sure it can’t happen up here and make the current threats to our democracy your issues.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.

Before Post

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Crime / 3 hours ago

First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl

Opinion / 8 hours ago

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

International / 10 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Business

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X