Remember that the unaccountable government schlubs will get their pensions:
Carney's cabinet can now streamline the approvals process by allowing some projects to bypass provisions of federal laws like the Impact Assessment Act, which has long been criticized as a hindrance to getting things approved in a timely manner.
While the legislation doesn't dictate what should be built, Carney has signalled it could be used to greenlight new energy "corridors" in the east and west, including possible pipelines and electricity grids, new and expanded port facilities, mines and other resource-related initiatives.
None of which will happen.
But don't take my word for it:
Meanwhile, sustainability is about green investment opportunities shaped by a strategic direction set by governments through carbon pricing, regulation and financial disclosure. Ironically, Carney’s support for carbon pricing is among his strongest policy recommendations.
**
His justification for such unprecedented bureaucratic control? His fears about climate change, which drives the need for “radical” action, as he himself puts it.
In Carney’s world, we won’t be focused on efficiency and prosperity, but on asking whether every stock we buy and every purchase we make comes from a company with a stamp of approval from Ottawa’s climate bureaucracy. It will be a world of endless energy audits and reports, perpetual paperwork and red tape, one sure to please activist Greta Thunberg, whom Carney repeatedly gushes about in the book, not to mention Carney’s wife Diana Fox Carney, a green energy policy consultant.
Among his dictates, Carney writes, “Our goal has been to put in place the information, tools and markets so that every financial decision takes climate change into account.”
The plan is to build a government policy framework that will “shut down unsustainable activity that is no longer viable in the net-zero world.” It is to be reached at a “war-like pace to fight what John Kerry has termed World War Zero.”
Regulations, rules, mandates, prohibitions, taxes and subsidies will direct our economy. “This requires a fundamental reordering of the financial system so that all aspects of finance — investments, loans, derivatives, insurance products, whole markets — systematically take the impact of their actions in the race to net zero.”
Financiers will judge companies against net zero standards “and determine who is on the right and wrong side of history. There are assets that will be stranded and embedded capital that must be scrapped.”
In total, 80 per cent of fossil fuel reserves (75 per cent of coal, 50 per cent of gas, 33 per cent of oil) will need to stay in the ground, “stranding” these assets, as Carney puts it. Other stranded assets will include hundreds of billions in automotive plants.
**
According to the record, Canada’s objectives are “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.” If you aren’t in the loop, then have a look HERE.
This ambitious plan could have been written by Prime Minister Mark Carney himself, and indeed, it may have been because, although it was fashioned in 2022 during the previous Liberal Prime Minister’s tenure, Mr. Carney was Trudeau’s key advisor at the time. ...
Therein lies the discomfort with his signals. Does he or does he not completely believe what he has written and spoken about in world forums with regard to climate change? If he does, then I don’t see any hope for oil or gas pipelines or even for LNG, as climate zealots claim that the manufacturing and transport of the product emits methane, which they deem even more “dangerous” than carbon dioxide.
Carney recently signed an accord with the European Union, which is notoriously carbon-sensitive, to further trade and mutual defence policies. So here is another conundrum. How do you ratchet up manufacturing of defence products without increasing emissions, when he claims that manufacturing bears a large part of the blame for difficulty in reaching his net zero targets?
I take no issue with increasing our defence spending or opening up new markets by creating important trade corridors to get our goods safely to tidewater through Canadian ports. What concerns me is that it is hard to take Carney at his word when his word keeps changing. We don’t know for sure where Carney is going, or how, or where he is leading us.
If he is bowing to his self-confessed “pragmatic side” and ignoring his fervently held beliefs about meeting the stringent goal set for a net zero future, what does this say about integrity?
As Carney says in his book, governments need to gain the trust of the voters. In order to achieve this, transparency is paramount. Mark Carney needs to open up and be transparent. Tell us exactly where he is taking us — and then let us judge for ourselves whether or not we wish to follow.
Also:
Two climate programs launched on a $300 million promise of new jobs and lower emissions could prove neither after seven years, says a Department of Natural Resources report. Managers “stopped collecting” data that would establish whether taxpayers received value for money: “It will most likely be too difficult and too late to identify weaknesses or errors.”
Is Carney sure that he can afford to lose Alberta?:
Alberta’s 2024-25 fiscal year ended with a record-breaking $8.3 billion surplus, exceeding budget projections by $8 billion, according to the 2024-25 Final Results Year-end Report.
Fueled by $82.5 billion in revenue, including $22 billion from non-renewable resources and a $713-million tobacco settlement, the surplus reflects robust economic growth driven by the Trans Mountain pipeline, record oil production, and a weaker Canadian dollar.
Nate Horner, President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance believes this surplus shows the province’s strength.
“The road ahead may be rough, but Alberta is built to last,” Horner said. “We’re paying down debt, saving for the future and backing the services Albertans count on.
“This surplus lets us save smart, spend wisely and stand strong for the long haul.”
Revenues were listed at $82.5 billion, $8.9 billion more than projected in the 2024 budget.
Expenses reached $74.1 billion, with increased spending on health ($27.6 billion), education ($9.9 billion), and wildfire response ($3 billion).
Capital spending was $1.1 billion below budget due to project delays.
Despite issues such as wildfires and global economic challenges, Premier Danielle Smith credited disciplined fiscal management for Alberta’s stability.
“Alberta’s financial strength isn’t just luck, it’s the result of disciplined decisions and a clear commitment to responsible government,” Smith said.
“While others reach for higher taxes and more debt, we’re focused on stability, savings and respect for the people who keep Alberta’s economy moving.”
The Department of Employment confirms it has begun writing off millions in unrecoverable pandemic relief cheques paid to ineligible claimants. It would not say how much taxpayers lost: “We knew.”
It’s now more than four years since the federal Liberal government pledged $30 billion in spending over five years for $10-a-day national childcare, and more than three years since Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government signed a $13.2-billion deal with the federal government to deliver this childcare plan.
Not surprisingly, with massive government funding came massive government control. While demand for childcare has increased due to the government subsidies and lower out-of-pocket costs for parents, the plan significantly restricts how childcare centres operate (including which items participating centres may purchase), and crucially caps the proportion of government funds available to private, for-profit providers.
(Sidebar: this is where Canadians fail. They think because they are not paying X price up front that it is, therefore, cheaper. What they never factor in is that they are paying for something twice, once through taxes and once through a direct deposit. Throwing more money at something as opposed to keeping the money is making the problem worse.)
The result? Widespread childcare shortages across Ontario. For example, according to the City of Ottawa, the number of children (aged 0 to 5 years) on childcare waitlists has ballooned by more than 300 per cent since 2019, while families face “significantly higher” costs for before-and-after-school care. Ottawa families find the system “complex and difficult to navigate” and “fewer child care options exist for children with special needs.” And while 42 per cent of surveyed parents need flexible childcare (weekends, evenings, part-time care), only one per cent of childcare centres offer these flexible options.
Moreover, according to Peel Region’s 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government (essentially, a list of asks and recommendations), it “has maximized its for-profit allocation, leaving 1,460 for-profit spaces on a waitlist.” In other words, families can’t access $10-per-day childcare — the central promise of the plan — because the government has capped the number of for-profit centres.
Similarly, according to Halton Region’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government, “no additional families can be supported with affordable child care” because, under current provincial rules, government funding can only be used to reduce childcare fees for families already in the program. And according to a March 2025 Oxford County report, “provincial expansion targets do not reflect anticipated child care demand.”
No comments:
Post a Comment