Uncategorized
UCP MLA says Albertans do not want Kenney 2.0
Article submitted by Red Deer South MLA Jason Stephan
Time for Kenney to Put His Straw Men Away
Kenney wanted a new base. The base wanted a new leader. Despite Kenney’s political games seeking to manipulate his own democratic check and balance, he lost, and popular sovereignty won.
Popular sovereignty is the principle that the authority of government is created and sustained by the consent of its people. Benjamin Franklin expressed this principle as follows “free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns”.
Alberta needs more popular sovereignty, more checks and balances on the use and abuse of power. Kenney gave a “grassroots guarantee”. The grassroots said stand up to Ottawa. Kenney said “yes” and did “no”.
Kenney is a career politician. Soon he will be able to start receiving his Ottawa gold-plated pension at 55, much more than a hundred thousand each year, for the rest of his life. Kenney has a vested interest in the status quo.
What about Salma Lakhani, Alberta’s lieutenant governor? Prior to her appointment by Trudeau in 2020, she donated over $25,000 to the corrupt Trudeau Liberal party. Was she appointed because she was one of the largest, and only donors in Alberta, to Trudeau’s party? Is her obvious support for Trudeau, the worst prime minister in Canadian history, representative of Albertans? Like Kenney, she also chose to cast aspersions on a Sovereignty Act for Alberta, but she is a figurehead enjoying privilege of a political elite, also having a vested interest in the status quo.
Great leaders lead in love and inspire the best in those they serve. They remember the principles of popular sovereignty, that their position is only “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
In his leadership review, Kenney called the people of Alberta who disagreed with him “kooks”, “lunatics” and “bugs”. How did that work out for him?
Kenney is now calling the Sovereignty Act “nuts”, “cockamamie” and “catastrophically stupid”. Is that going to produce unity? No.
Kenney says he is “not endorsing or opposing a particular candidate”. We all know that is not true.
Kenney not only engages in patterns of name calling, but also patterns of saying one thing and doing something else. Many no longer trust Kenney.
Is Kenney thinking that if he cannot win, or his intended Kenney 2.0, then he will sabotage to try to make sure no one can?
Kenney is calling the Free Alberta Strategy, the organization who formulated the original version of an Alberta Sovereignty Act, a “far right extremist group”. I participated in some of their townhalls. So did Danielle Smith and Todd Loewen. So did some of my MLA colleagues seeking to protect Alberta businesses and families from Ottawa. Kenney sounds like Trudeau. Are we now part of a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”?
Kenney knows it is inappropriate to intermeddle in the leadership race to replace him, so Kenney is trying to be sneaky, doing indirectly what he knows he should not do directly.
Isn’t Kenney acting like Trudeau? Doesn’t Ottawa seek to do indirectly, what constitutionally it is not allowed to do directly, such as with Alberta’s constitutional authority over its oil and gas resources? Didn’t Alberta’s Court of Appeal describe Trudeau’s carbon tax as a sneaky “constitutional trojan
horse”?
Isn’t Trudeau proposing a new carbon tax or cap and trade that singles out and disproportionately punishes Alberta? Wouldn’t that inflict more economic “chaos”, chasing out additional billions in investment and Alberta jobs with it? What is Kenney doing about it? Drafting a sternly worded letter?
Isn’t the purpose of the Sovereignty Act, to assert and defend constitutional parameters that Ottawa habitually ignores and attacks?
I know and respect each of the UCP leadership candidates. But Albertans do not want Kenney or a Kenney 2.0 and some of them need to take care to not act like Kenney, put the straw men away, and stop misrepresenting the Sovereignty Act and then attacking the worst version of it manufactured out of their misrepresentations, only existing in their minds. If Sovereignty Act is so bad, instead of fear mongering with straw men, let’s hear your ideas and solutions.
If candidates want to walk the talk on unity, stop looking the other way, and ask Kenney to do what he said he would do and be quiet. That will produce more unity and that is what Albertans want.
Uncategorized
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
By Carson Binda
BC Government promised carbon tax would reduce CO2 by 33%. It has done nothing.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the British Columbia government to scrap the carbon tax as new data shows the province’s carbon emissions have continued to rise, despite the oldest carbon tax in the country.
“The carbon tax isn’t reducing carbon emissions like the politicians promised,” said Carson Binda, B.C. Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Premier David Eby needs to axe the tax now to save British Columbians money.”
Emissions data from the provincial government shows that British Columbia’s emissions have risen since the introduction of a carbon tax.
Total emissions in 2007, the last year without a provincial carbon tax, stood at 65.5 MtCO2e, while 2022 emissions data shows an increase to 65.6 MtCO2e.
When the carbon tax was introduced, the B.C. government pledged that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent.
The Eby government plans to increase the B.C. carbon tax again on April 1, 2025. After that increase, the carbon tax will add 21 cents to the cost of a litre of natural gas, 25 cents per litre of diesel and 18 cents per cubic meter of natural gas.
“The carbon tax has cost British Columbians a lot of money, but it hasn’t helped the environment as promised,” Binda said. “Eby has a simple choice: scrap the carbon tax before April 1, or force British Columbians to pay even more to heat our homes and drive to work.”
If a family fills up the minivan once per week for a year, the carbon tax will cost them $728. The carbon tax on natural gas will add $435 to the average family’s home heating bills in the 12 months after the April 1 carbon tax hike.
Other provinces, like Saskatchewan, have unilaterally stopped collecting the carbon tax on essentials like home heating and have not faced consequences from Ottawa.
“British Columbians need real relief from the costs of the provincial carbon tax,” Binda said. “Eby needs to stop waiting for permission from the leaderless federal government and scrap the tax on British Columbians.”
Uncategorized
The problem with deficits and debt
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss
This fiscal year (2024/25), the federal government and eight out of 10 provinces project a budget deficit, meaning they’re spending more than collecting in revenues. Unfortunately, this trend isn’t new. Many Canadian governments—including the federal government—have routinely ran deficits over the last decade.
But why should Canadians care? If you listen to some politicians (and even some economists), they say deficits—and the debt they produce—are no big deal. But in reality, the consequences of government debt are real and land squarely on everyday Canadians.
Budget deficits, which occur when the government spends more than it collects in revenue over the fiscal year, fuel debt accumulation. For example, since 2015, the federal government’s large and persistent deficits have more than doubled total federal debt, which will reach a projected $2.2 trillion this fiscal year. That has real world consequences. Here are a few of them:
Diverted Program Spending: Just as Canadians must pay interest on their own mortgages or car loans, taxpayers must pay interest on government debt. Each dollar spent paying interest is a dollar diverted from public programs such as health care and education, or potential tax relief. This fiscal year, federal debt interest costs will reach $53.7 billion or $1,301 per Canadian. And that number doesn’t include provincial government debt interest, which varies by province. In Ontario, for example, debt interest costs are projected to be $12.7 billion or $789 per Ontarian.
Higher Taxes in the Future: When governments run deficits, they’re borrowing to pay for today’s spending. But eventually someone (i.e. future generations of Canadians) must pay for this borrowing in the form of higher taxes. For example, if you’re a 16-year-old Canadian in 2025, you’ll pay an estimated $29,663 over your lifetime in additional personal income taxes (that you would otherwise not pay) due to Canada’s ballooning federal debt. By comparison, a 65-year-old will pay an estimated $2,433. Younger Canadians clearly bear a disproportionately large share of the government debt being accumulated currently.
Risks of rising interest rates: When governments run deficits, they increase demand for borrowing. In other words, governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing. In response, interest rates rise, and subsequently, so does the cost of servicing government debt. Of course, the private sector also must pay these higher interest rates, which can reduce the level of private investment in the economy. In other words, private investment that would have occurred no longer does because of higher interest rates, which reduces overall economic growth—the foundation for job-creation and prosperity. Not surprisingly, as government debt has increased, business investment has declined—specifically, business investment per worker fell from $18,363 in 2014 to $14,687 in 2021 (inflation-adjusted).
Risk of Inflation: When governments increase spending, particularly with borrowed money, they add more money to the economy, which can fuel inflation. According to a 2023 report from Scotiabank, government spending contributed significantly to higher interest rates in Canada, accounting for an estimated 42 per cent of the increase in the Bank of Canada’s rate since the first quarter of 2022. As a result, many Canadians have seen the costs of their borrowing—mortgages, car loans, lines of credit—soar in recent years.
Recession Risks: The accumulation of deficits and debt, which do not enhance productivity in the economy, weaken the government’s ability to deal with future challenges including economic downturns because the government has less fiscal capacity available to take on more debt. That’s because during a recession, government spending automatically increases and government revenues decrease, even before policymakers react with any specific measures. For example, as unemployment rises, employment insurance (EI) payments automatically increase, while revenues for EI decrease. Therefore, when a downturn or recession hits, and the government wants to spend even more money beyond these automatic programs, it must go further into debt.
Government debt comes with major consequences for Canadians. To alleviate the pain of government debt on Canadians, our policymakers should work to balance their budgets in 2025.
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Biden Pardons His Brother Jim And Other Family Members Just Moments Before Trump’s Swearing-In
-
Catherine Herridge2 days ago
Return of the Diet Coke Button
-
Business2 days ago
TikTok Restores Service After US Shutdown Amid Trump Deal
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days ago
Canadian Court Upholds Ban on Clearview AI’s Unconsented Facial Data Collection
-
Business1 day ago
Carney says as PM he would replace the Carbon Tax with something ‘more effective’
-
Business1 day ago
Freeland and Carney owe Canadians clear answer on carbon taxes
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
WEF Davos 2025: Attendees at annual meeting wrestling for control of information
-
International2 days ago
Biden preemptively pardons Fauci, Cheney, Milley on way out