The News Rundown

B.C. to scrap consumer carbon tax if federal government drops legal requirement

This week saw the biggest flip flop we've seen in BC politics in awhile, with David Eby of the BC NDP promising he will get rid of B.C.’s consumer carbon tax if the federal government also drops the federal tax that would take over if there wasn’t a provincial tax.
This is quite possibly the biggest surprise to come in a strange pre-election campaign that saw the BC Conservatives rise up the the polls, to the BC United's failed rename and rebranding that saw them suspend their election campaign 2 weeks ago. And yet, even the NDP, with David Eby always sticking to his guns on policy issues, now sees just how unpopular the carbon tax actually is.
The premier defended his decision, saying it is necessary in a changing political climate: “A lot of British Columbians are struggling with affordability. The political consensus we had in B.C. has been badly damaged by the approach of the federal government, so if it decides to remove the legal backstop requiring us to have a consumer carbon tax in B.C., we will end the consumer carbon tax in B.C.”
Eby argued that large increases to the federal tax, now $80 a tonne as of April 1, is “unsustainable,” as is the federal Liberal’s favouritism of the Maritimes by exempting home heating oil, but not other heat sources such as natural gas, which are more prevalent in B.C.
Opposition critics were quick to jump on the decision, with B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad claiming victory after months of promising that one of the first things he would do if elected would be to scrap the carbon tax. He said Eby’s announcement is typical of a “flip-flopping liar” that will do anything to get re-elected on Oct. 19.
Rustad said on Thursday: “It’s clear in my mind that from April 1, if the NDP are tragically reelected in this province, that the carbon tax will go up once again. David Eby has made no commitment to change the schedule of the carbon tax, the increases and the continuing, ongoing damage for people in British Columbia and whereas, as a Conservative government, that will come to an end in British Columbia as soon as we have that opportunity.”
Most premiers and federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre oppose the increasingly unpopular Liberal government in Ottawa on carbon pricing, arguing it does little to bring down emissions while also negatively impacting working class Canadians.
Poilievre has long campaigned to “scrap the tax,” meaning the federal alternate tax’s days are numbered if the poll-leading Conservatives form a new federal government after the scheduled 2025 election.
Earlier Thursday, even federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said his party is coming up with a climate plan that may scrap the policy altogether if the party forms government. Singh said Thursday that “We want to see an approach to fighting the climate crisis where it doesn’t put the burden on the backs of working people, where big polluters have to pay their fair share. And so we’ve been working on a plan, and we’ll be releasing our plan, our vision for how we can do that in a stronger way, in the coming months.”
What a world we live in that even the federal NDP and BC NDP are against a carbon tax now. Trevor Tombe, a professor in the economics department at the University of Calgary, said the retail carbon tax is no longer viable and that it is now a question of “when, not if, it will be eliminated at the federal level.”
Tombe said: “I think the biggest blow to the Liberal carbon pricing policy was what the Liberals did to themselves. It is incredibly hard, if not impossible, for the government to sustainably defend the consumer facing carbon tax anymore.”
Last year, the prime minister announced he was temporarily removing the tax from home heating oil and boosting rebates for rural residents. That decision, Tombe said, undermined the Liberals’ own argument that carbon taxes were not a source of the affordability challenge that Canadians have been facing over the last few years. Tombe suggested that the Liberal party “will almost certainly want to distance itself from this policy” when a new leader replaces Trudeau.
The BC version of the tax was initially brought in by the B.C. Liberals under Gordon Campbell in 2008, a government in which John Rustad served as an MLA. It was opposed by the NDP in 2009 before they ultimately embraced it. At the time it was the first carbon tax in North America, and before Trudeau's climate policies, it actually wasn't that unpopular for a tax. However, when the NDP got into power, it expanded and no longer remained revenue neutral as it once had been.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said Thursday that he is in alignment with Eby on the issue, having asked Ottawa for an exemption from carbon pricing in the spring. He believes the tax is not the right way to fight climate change at a time when high inflation and high interest rates are making life unaffordable for many.
Let's not forget that when Poilievre was calling on premiers to support him in the fight against Trudeau's carbon tax increase on April 1st, Eby was unequivocal in his denial.
On March 15th, just 6 months ago, Eby had this to say: “I don't live in the Pierre Poilievre campaign office and baloney factory. I live in B.C., am the premier, and decisions have consequences. The fact we face is that if we followed Mr. Poilievre's suggestion there would be less money returned to British Columbians after April 1 than there would be if the federal government administered this increase directly.”
In contrast, on Thursday, with the answer to the very first reporter's question, Eby largely abandoned his staunch support for the carbon tax. With one, brutal, cynical stroke he repudiated his defence of the tax as key to the fight against climate change and everything he’s said about critics of the tax as being climate change deniers.
In abandoning the tax with nine days to go before the official start of the election campaign, Eby revealed a lot about the current state of political affairs in the province — more, probably, than he intended to let out.
First of all, he confirmed that NDP internal polling puts the governing party in danger of losing the election. If the trend were to continue, Eby risks defeat at the hands of an electorate that never chose him as premier in the first place.
Second, the premier confirmed that Rustad is making inroads with the public despite NDP efforts to frame the Conservative leader as a “career politician” leading an extremist band of bigots and loonies.
If it were not the case that Eby is in danger of losing to Rustad, the premier would never have abandoned the carbon tax the way he did – on short notice, with zero evidence that he’d thought through the implications.
Not a briefing note to back up the announcement. No details on the NDP plan to eliminate the tax on consumers,while holding it steady on major industrial polluters.
Nothing to say about the impact on revenue from dramatically reducing a formerly revenue neutral tax that collects $2.5 billion a year while the New Democrats give back only $1 billion to those eligible through climate action credits.
He made no acknowledgement of his own government’s role in abandoning any semblance of revenue neutrality on the tax, while lecturing British Columbians on its virtues in the absence of evidence that it was making any difference.
When Eby took office as premier in late 2022, some New Democrats urged him to call a snap election. Eby knew better. There was no need for a snap election he declared. He would show results over 18 months, then seek approval from the voters.
Well, the results show a lot of money spent, with net debt reaching a projected $129 billion by 2026/27—nearly triple the rate before Eby became premier. He made big promises on housing, health and the drug crisis and British Columbians can see that things haven't gotten better with all the money spent.
Unless Eby can recover the momentum lost to Rustad, he risks joining the small number of two modern-day B.C. premiers who were selected by their parties but failed to secure a mandate from the voters. That must be a humiliating prospect for a leader with Eby’s combination of self-assurance and righteousness.
Supplementals:

A new plan to house asylum seekers across the country has raised eyebrows.
Canada’s 4 streams of immigration
Permanent residents: high skilled migrants sought out for their domain expertise. Our past source of main source of immigration.
Students: Go to our universities and either return home or have the hope of making a life in Canada.
Temporary Foreign Workers: Talked about previously in terms of abuse and a labour class.
Asylum seekers & refugees: The most vulnerable migrants. Should ideally be granted the best experience. Diminished by Roxham Road and influx of refugees from Middle East and now Ukraine.
This entire story originated because of Marc Miller feeling the need to relieve pressures on Ontario and Quebec. He in particular called them “disproportionate pressures” put onto both of these provinces.
This has spurred Miller to outright say that “smaller provinces have a responsibility to take in more asylum seekers to lower the pressure on Ontario and Quebec.”
And by smaller provinces he means all of them. He also sees it as an opportunity for the provinces to better themselves and be inspired.
Marc Miller wants provinces to be inspired by asylum seekers. He said, “in order to move forward, we have to put numbers on the table on what an aspirational number of asylum seekers would look like.”
He won’t say what that number is but the very fact our federal immigration minister says that provinces should look to take more when the government says immigration changes are coming means that as some had feared not much will change when it comes to immigration into the provinces.
Danielle Smith was quick to state that Alberta can not go along with this. She released a length statement on X but at the end of the day she said, “we simply cannot afford it.”
She mentions in the last year that 200,000 people moved to Alberta. This is similar to adding two new Red Deer sized cities in just one year.
Though of course two new cities were not built and those 200,000 people were forced to fit in where they could from Edmonton, to Calgary, and even into rural parts of the province.
She also mentioned that Alberta represents 11.8% of the Canadian population but is supporting 22% (over 70,000) Ukrainian evacuees.
This again is why the immigration stream of refugees and traditional asylum seekers must be preserved. Putin’s brutal war on Ukraine and the stalemate it has devolved to shows why we must be compassionate.
But we are unfortunately at a point where it is becoming hard to even bring in refugees.
Premier Smith then reminded those in the media and those reading that immigration is a shared responsibility. This is mandated by Section 95 of the Constitution.
Alberta should be able to decide what kind of immigrants come to the province. Quebec wants this tool, Alberta should have it too.
Marc Miller then threw shade back at Smith because last year the provinces requested 30,000 permanent residency spots. And of course because the province requested those we should be able to take the asylum seekers, apparently.
At the end of the day Miller clarified that the federal government would send monetary support but provinces still aren’t pleased with the initiative.
Smith said despite that, “until further notice, our government does not support any further relocation of asylum seekers to Alberta. We’ll let you know if that changes.”
But as detailed at the top of the show, asylum seekers are not permanent residents.
It’s not just Alberta! Blaine Higgs of New Brunswick said the province can’t take 4,600 extra asylum seekers without financial assistance.
Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston also said that “it is simply unacceptable for the Trudeau government to try to force thousands of asylum seekers on our province at this time.”
There we have it: a continued disconnect between this federal government and the premiers and the people.
This is becoming an issue that is ruining Canada’s immigration program and needs to be fixed by the next government or Canada will head down the path of the populist right that we’ve seen in areas of eastern Europe and the US.
Supplementals:

Canadian Army says new military sleeping bags not suitable for 'typical Canadian winter'

The Canadian government has just overseen another military procurement boondoggle. Despite the defence department spending more than $34.8 million on new sleeping bags, the Canadian Army asked late last year that hundreds of soldiers headed to a joint northern exercise in Alaska with the Americans be issued with old, 1960s-vintage bedrolls instead. Why? Bluntly, the new ones suck.
Troops who had used the recently issued General Purpose Sleeping Bag System (GPSBS) late last fall in a preparatory exercise found "several critical issues related to lack of warmth with the new GPSBS," said the briefing note, written on Dec. 5, 2023.
More than 350 soldiers belonging to the 3rd battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI) deployed to Ram Falls Provincial Park, west of Red Deer, Alta., in late November last year, where they spent several days training for northern operations. Temperatures during the deployment ranged from – 5C during the day to – 20C at night. During the training exercise last fall, soldiers reported that even though they used both the inner and outer shells and slept in tents heated by stoves, they were still cold.
The general unsuitability of the new sleeping bag system has prompted the Department of National Defence (DND) to start looking to buy additional bedrolls that can be used in the Far North. According to the internal briefing note, 3 PPCLI's quartermaster concluded the new sleeping bags were "better suited for use in weather conditions that are characteristic of late spring to early fall" and were not practical "for typical Canadian winter conditions nor the extreme cold of Alaska," where the troops deployed for further training in January.
In a statement, DND said the Ram Falls deployment battalion was actually the second unit to complain about the new sleeping bags. Troops belonging to the 2nd battalion Royal Canadian Regiment (2RCR) also found the new sleeping bags flawed on a separate exercise.
Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary, a defence expert in Arctic military affairs, said he wonders what sort of cold weather testing was conducted on the new sleeping bags before they were ordered.
Huebert said: "I wonder if they should have just gone to Canadian Tire. You need to test to make sure that the new kit works, because it does not always work. We're getting such difficulties and challenges from a no-brainer, such as sleeping bags. And when you start thinking about the over-the-horizon radars, the F-35 and its parts, and presumably the submarines, at one point — I mean, it just does not fill one with too much confidence."
In its statement, DND said it sought feedback from soldiers — but the department did not answer directly when asked what sort of cold weather testing was done before it chose to purchase the sleeping bags, only saying: "The GPSBS was chosen following a rigorous competitive process. The technical requirements used to make the selection included insulation value, weight of the bags and the packing volume."
It added that it still considers the new bags suitable for most uses – but now additionally aims to buy new sleeping bags that are adapted for winter in the far north and the Arctic.
While the Trudeau Liberals as recently as April were trying to grandstand that they were on the case with protecting Canada's Arctic, budget cuts have shown their true colours. The DND has deprived the army's system for maintaining equipment and vehicles of up to $150 million, and when the preservation of older systems — the kind that might have to be pressed into service during an emergency — is factored in, the funding gap grows to $260 million.
The shortage of what DND calls national procurement funding is having an impact on the army's ability to respond to a crisis call from NATO or to domestic emergencies, such as the recent wildfires in Western Canada.
Lt-Col. Sandra Lévesque said that the "overall serviceability of operational [army] fleets is, as of 10 June 2024, 52 per cent." That statement means 48 per cent of the army's equipment is unserviceable — an increase of 2% since last year.
The latest federal budget, tabled last spring in the House of Commons, tasked DND with cutting internal spending by $810 million in the current fiscal year, and by $908 million per year in 2026–27 and beyond. Defence Minister Bill Blair had insisted that any internal military budget cuts would target the bureaucracy, not military capabilities. However, skimping on maintenance and upkeep, will have serious consequences for the army's operational readiness, especially when procurement disasters like the sleeping bag issue are considered.
It's another nail in the coffin for Canada's failing defence policy in an increasingly unstable world. This will be another of Trudeau's legacy: lots of money spent for terrible returns.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

DND paid $32K for 'intersectional feminist' report on space exploration

In the realm of wacky story of the week we go to Bryan Passifiume in the Toronto Sun who details a new $32,250 “intersectional feminist” report on space exploration.
The Department of National Defence paid that price to commission a report examining space exploration through an intersectional and feminist lens, concluding that existing approaches to space are rife with “patterns of entrenched gender, racial and geopolitical dominance,” exclusions fortified by “discussions in technospeak,” and encourages practices considered “racist,” “exploitative” and “environmentally destructive.”
The report is titled Hidden harms: Human (In)security in Outer Space produced by Project Ploughshares for the Canadian “peace research institute” associated with the Canadian Council of Churches.
At this point you just have to laugh.
According to the report, “Space systems represent an unevenly distributed continuum of human benefits and harms that are shaped by gender, race, socioeconomic status, geographic location and other differentiating qualities”
The report champions excluding “gendered,” “colonial” or “militarized” language in space — ostensibly rendering common science fiction plot devices such as space exploration and human settlements on other worlds — as unacceptably problematic.
The report also claims contemporary space programs “invisiblize” women via “manned” language, which the authors claim force women to “imagine themselves within masculine constructs.”
The report also opposes a “colonial bias” that says the approaches “normalize violence and exploitation by using colonial-biased terms like ‘exploration’ and ‘conquest’, referring to space as a frontier and terra nullius, and depicting outer space as a hostile and desolate environment that is unpeopled/inhuman and controlled so that it can provide an extractable resource”
As readers of the news and readers of the report we need to realize that the realities of war and the department of national defence necessitate them to focus on real physical objects - like sleeping bags.
But the very fact this report was commissioned tells us all we need to know about the current government, the ministers involved, and the bureaucracy in departments like the Ministry of Defence.
$32k isn’t a lot in the grand scheme of things but every defence penny adds up and could have been spent on something else.
One also needs to question what good this report would do, heaven forbid we were actually invaded.
Supplementals:

https://www.ploughshares.ca/reports/hidden-harms-human-in-security-in-outer-space-consultation-report

Quote of the Week

"I wonder if they should have just gone to Canadian Tire. You need to test to make sure that the new kit works, because it does not always work. We're getting such difficulties and challenges from a no-brainer, such as sleeping bags. And when you start thinking about the over-the-horizon radars, the F-35 and its parts, and presumably the submarines, at one point — I mean, it just does not fill one with too much confidence." - Ron Huebert, a defence expert on Arctic matters, on the sleeping bag boondoggle.

Word of the Week

Invisibilize - to marginalize so as to erase the presence or contributions of

How to Find Us
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Pinching Pennies
Teaser: The BC NDP flip flop on the carbon tax, Alberta doesn’t want any more asylum seekers, and the DND spends almost $40m on sleeping bags that don’t work. Also, a new feminist report on space exploration raises eyebrows.
Recorded Date: September 14, 2024
Release Date: September 15, 2024
Duration: 55:51
Edit Notes: Many

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX