LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Canadians are opening their mailboxes with anxiety this winter. As the temperature drops, taxpayers are worried about the doozie of a home-heating bill they’ll find waiting for them on the front stoop. The numbers are scary thanks to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

In April 2023, the Trudeau government jacked up the carbon tax for the fourth straight year. The federal government’s carbon tax is now $65 per tonne.

A higher carbon tax means higher prices at the pump, the grocery store and on home heating.

On the home heating front, the Trudeau government is literally punishing Canadians for wanting to stay warm in the winter.

Just how bad are the numbers?

Sixty-two per cent of Ontario households use natural gas to heat their homes. The carbon tax bill for Ontario taxpayers living in an average-sized home will be $326 this winter.

Many talking heads in Ottawa who defend the carbon tax claim that even though Canadians are being hammered on their home heating bills, the federal government’s quarterly rebates more than make up the difference.

They tell taxpayers that paying the carbon tax actually makes them better off.

“The price on pollution puts more money back into the pockets of the majority of Canadians,” said federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault just days ago.

But the Parliamentary Budget Officer isn’t buying that spin. Neither are Canadians.

The average Ontario family will lose $627 in 2024 thanks to the carbon tax, even after the rebates, according to the PBO.

More than 50 per cent of Canadian families now say they’re less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Nearly two million Canadians turned to food banks in 2023.

Canadian families cannot afford the Trudeau government’s carbon tax, particularly on home heating.

The Trudeau government has long claimed the carbon tax is needed to help Canada meet its environmental targets. But Trudeau blew a hole in his own argument by providing a three-year carbon tax exemption for Canadians who heat their homes with heating oil.

Up to 40 per cent of Atlantic Canadian households use home heating oil to heat their homes, while only three per cent of Ontario households use that method.

Trudeau’s special exemption means those who use home heating oil (which is dirtier than natural gas) are getting a carbon tax break, while 62 per cent of Ontarians who use natural gas are not.

Trudeau’s politically-motivated exemption shows the carbon tax is all about politics. It always has been.

To add insult to injury, there’s no substantive evidence to show carbon taxes actually work.

British Columbia was the first province in Canada to impose a carbon tax. But B.C.’s emissions have gone up, not down. The province’s emissions were higher in 2021 than in 2015, despite four carbon tax increases during that period.

Ottawa is forcing a carbon tax down Canadians’ throats without evidence that it actually works.

If taxpayers think today’s carbon tax numbers are bad, life is about to get a whole lot more expensive. The Trudeau government is planning to hike the federal carbon tax every year between now and 2030. It will rise from $65 per tonne today to $170 per tonne by the end of the decade.

What does that mean for the average household?

The typical Ontario family will see their carbon tax bill on home heating grow from $326 this year to a stunning $853 by 2030.

And the gap between the carbon tax costs Canadians face, and the rebates the government plans to give, are set to grow too – from $627 this year to $1,820 by 2030.

Canadians cannot afford Trudeau’s carbon tax policies.

It’s not optional for Canadians to heat their homes in the winter and families shouldn’t have to go broke just to stay warm.

The federal carbon tax needs to go.

Jay Goldberg is the Ontario Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

 

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


The continued decline of our Parliament from a once serious and proud institution to a deeply unserious clown show accelerated at an alarming rate over the fall sitting, particularly in the House of Commons, thought the Senate has not been immune. As the world becomes an increasingly dangerous place, with the climate emergency now in full swing, the international rules-based order under assault by Russia and its allies, liberal democracy in the West under siege from far-right actors and the likes of Viktor Orbán as he tries to position himself as a leader in post-liberal politics, Canada is on a precipice. This should be a moment where our political class wakes up and realizes that we have a lot of challenges staring us in the face, and we should be serious adults in trying to address them. That is not what is happening, and the incentives are no longer there politically for this to happen.

Things began in late summer with a Cabinet shuffle and a Liberal caucus retreat that was about the party expressing their frustration in a leader who is getting long in the tooth, and whose staff have been creating problems for the caucus as a whole. It wound up with Trudeau surviving the day, and his caucus more or less coming together, but promised action on the housing crisis, which the federal government had finally woken up to, was still some weeks away. Meanwhile, trying to remind the government about their previous “deliverology” philosophy seemed to fall on deaf ears as they convinced themselves their plunging poll numbers was simply a matter of not communicating enough, rather than of not showing results.

Things seemed to pick up in late September when Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in Ottawa, and gave a speech to a joint session of Parliament, but the high of that event was quickly shattered in the days that followed when it became clear that the Speaker, Anthony Rota, had introduced a constituent in the gallery who had fought for a Nazi unit in the Second World War, and called him a “Canadian hero.” Rota epitomized the unseriousness that has beset our Parliament, more concerned with showing off and being everyone’s friend than he was in doing the serious work of being Speaker, and even after he spent a weekend being berated for his judgment in making that introduction in the Chamber, he still tried to hang onto his job before the House Leaders had to gang up on him and make it clear that it was untenable.

Once Rota resigned, and the process to elect his replacement got underway, MPs once again decided not to be serious about the task at hand. Rather than choose the woman who had been doing the job of assistant Deputy Speaker for years in competent fashion, and who had taken on non-partisan roles in the years leading up to this, they instead chose the much, much more partisan Greg Fergus, who while affable, had absolutely no experience in the role of being Speaker, and the Conservatives immediately tried to undermine him publicly. Fergus didn’t help himself as he started peacocking, and within weeks, found himself the subject of a privilege motion, and later a committee report recommending a fine and another apology, because he didn’t have enough foresight and judgment not to record a video for a provincial party friend while in his robes and in his official office. It remains to be seen if he can maintain his role with two opposition parties looking to remove him from the job.

The government, trying to recapture its economic credentials with the communications exercise of “Team Economy” press conferences every Tuesday morning, and some actually sound housing policies finally rolling out, stepped on yet another rake in announcing a “pause” on the carbon price for home heating oil nationally, but because Trudeau made the announcement with all of his Atlantic Canadian MPs behind him, it looked like he was trying to disproportionately benefit one region in order to salvage his polling numbers there. It also undermined the integrity of the carbon pricing regime, and set off a frenzy of demands for more carve-outs, for all home heating (never mind the price differential for heating oil versus other forms), and for on-farm fuels that aren’t already exempt, and this in turn led to some of the worst abuses of parliament in recent memory.

In the leadup to several votes making these demands, the Conservatives turned Question Period into a nihilistic exercise in clip-gathering, repeating the same scripts over and over again but changing the MP they are trying to single out for shitpost videos that would be triggers for their flying monkeys to harass and intimidate those MPs. This also got used against Senators who moved a routine procedural motion so that more senators could join the debate on a bill the Conservatives decided was a pressing wedge on the carbon price they could weaponized, and when a couple of Conservative senators also joined in with the intimidation tactics, one of them in person rather than simply online, things have become incredibly heated in that Chamber as well.

To cap off just how unserious this has all become, Pierre Poilievre spent the last couple of weeks shilling for a disinformation “documentary” on the housing crisis he produced, while engaging in some of the dumbest procedural tactics to try and force the government’s hand on carbon price carve-outs, with a vote marathon on the Estimates (which had nothing to do with the carbon price, and only served to punish the staff of the House of Commons who had to put in overtime to make this happen), and make empty threats to extend the sitting into the holidays, even though there is a fixed calendar and he couldn’t do that, plus it would actually benefit the government because they’d have additional time to push through their legislation. And in forcing the marathon, Poilievre seemed to actually unite the Liberal caucus, which had been grousing pretty hard over Trudeau in the weeks leading up to it.

The absolute decay in what is happening in Parliament was on full display, in large part because nobody is actually worrying about public policy any longer—nearly everything is now just about their comms strategies, and pushing it out over social media. Everything is just performance—substance has almost entirely left the building, and every party shares the blame in this. Canadians cannot afford for our political leaders to be taking their eye off the ball at such a critical juncture in history, and yet all we have to show for this are stupid games that are eroding our institutions. It’s time for all parliamentarians to grow up, before it’s too late.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Just over a year ago the Quebec National Assembly agreed to Bill 190, “An Act to recognize the Members’ oath to the people of Québec as the sole oath required for Members to take office.”

In Quebec’s case this effectively does away with the oath to the British monarch for provincial legislators still prescribed in what we now call the Constitution Act, 1867. And some experts argue Quebec’s Bill 190 is unconstitutional.

Errol Mendes at the University of Ottawa believes the Quebec National Assembly does not have the power to do away with the traditional oath to the monarch by itself (even with the assent of the federal government).

But, he has observed, “stunningly it looks as if they may get away with it.”

In some similar spirit, this past December 7, 2023  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “announced the appointment of Manon Jeannotte as the new Lieutenant Governor of Quebec.”

The very next day the Quebec National Assembly unanimously approved a motion to end the office of Quebec’s provincial lieutenant governor — still  theoretically a  representative of the monarch across the sea.

The office was characterized as “a symbol of colonialism,” and the motion called for “its replacement by a democratic institution.”

Set beside recent opinion poll buoyancy for both the Bloc and Parti Québécois (if not exactly “Quebec sovereignty”), all this underlines a deep if for some still uncomfortable truth. No Canada that includes a francophone-majority Quebec in any serious way can continue to pay colonial homage to the new King who lives in the United Kingdom.

(And this even seems ultimately workable coast to coast to coast, when recent opinion polls also suggest close to two-thirds of Canadians at large already do not believe Charles III’s monarchy has a long-term future in Canada.)

Similarly, as one step on a longer journey, democratizing the current office of lieutenant governor in Quebec is far from impossible.

It could equally be done without at all disrupting the current machinery of Canadian government. For real-world examples here see Canada’s fellow former British dominions of Ireland and India, and such other more generic parliamentary democracies as Iceland and Germany.

It is at least arguable as well that some reasonable interpretation of sections 41 and 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 could sanction a related constitutional amendment.

The major practical political problem with any serious democratization of the office of lieutenant governor and/or governor general is that it will cancel the Prime Minister of Canada’s current power to effectively appoint the holders of these offices.

Very briefly, one of history’s many cunning passages has rather irrationally given the head of government in our present political system the power to appoint the (de facto) head of state.

As Allan Levine’s 2011 biography clarifies, one of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King’s objectives in the King-Byng Affair of 1926, and subsequent Statue of Westminster in 1931, was to transfer the practical power to appoint Canadian governor generals from the British to the Canadian prime minister.

A side effect was to seriously weaken the governor general’s reserve power as a non-partisan constitutional referee — in decisions for example to prorogue parliaments and/or call elections. This has enhanced the power of the Canadian prime minister. And what holder of the office today is going to give this power up?

Yet in 2024 or (most likely?) 2025 Justin Trudeau will be trying to become the first Canadian prime minister to win four consecutive federal elections in more than 115 years!

He may even want to make clear that a fifth consecutive contest would be impossible. And this kind of prime minister might be willing to leave office with more democratic governor generals and lieutenant governors for the Canadian long-term future as his highest high-policy legacy.

Probably not, of course, on several grounds. (Just one of the surprises about Justin Trudeau is that he does seem to be at least a pragmatic monarchist of sorts.)

Yet again, some test case on democratizing the lieutenant governor of Quebec could still have more limited surprise attractions for Prime Minister Trudeau in 2024 and perhaps 2025 — in a new age when pollsters are reporting “Conservatives making inroads in Quebec.”

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Lacking in both remorse and repentance, Liberal House Leader Karina Gould recently admitted to reporters that her government would not meet its 2023 deadline to enact pharmacare legislation.

I don’t think we’re going to get it passed by the end of this year,” Gould told the press, “but we’ll definitely keep working” she added, almost cheerfully.

With the House of Commons holiday break fast approaching, her message shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise. By the time Gould finally acknowledged her government’s tardiness, there were only twelve sitting days left in the calendar year. As fellow Loonie Politics columnist Dale Smith has written, even 20 sitting days would likely have been insufficient to pass legislation. Twelve would have been unthinkable.

The NDP should have been the most frustrated by this development. After all, pharmacare is their signature policy demand.

Instead of ramping up the pressure, though, and lambasting the government for its poor punctuality, they meekly allowed the Liberals to continue procrastinating.

Perhaps they thought they could not leverage any more policy wins this year (after the Liberals tabled its anti-scab bill). Or perhaps the holiday season has made them overly charitable. Either way, they need to be much tougher on their supply-and-confidence partners.

Because believe me, the Liberals knew how long it would take to pass pharmacare legislation. They also knew all the necessary steps it would take to draft, introduce, and debate that legislation, before seeking its passage through both the House of Commons and the Senate.

But they dawdled and delayed, lingered and loitered, showing a complete disregard for the assurances they once made.

Now, as 2023 comes to an end, they have next to nothing to show for themselves. No Canada Pharmacare Act. No list of essential medicines from the National Drug Agency. No bulk purchasing plan. Nothing.

The answer why, is quite simple. It’s not a result of finite funds, or a struggling economy, as Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has suggested.

Rather, it is because the wealthy pharmaceutical and insurance industries are hell-bent on maintaining Canada’s inadequate patchwork of drug coverage plans. And they have unleashed the full power of their lobbying efforts to keep it that way.

These industry types don’t care that approximately 7.5 million (one in five) Canadians either have no prescription drug insurance or lack adequate insurance, under the current status quo. Or that almost one million Canadians had to forgo heating their homes and spending money on food to fill their prescription. Or that three million others simply went without their necessary medication.

Immense profit is their only concern, and they’ll have it, so long as they can prevent the government from lowering the obscenely high price of prescription drugs in this country.

As many in academia, civil society, and leftist political circles have long advocated, a single-payer, universal pharmacare system is the best solution to bring drug prices down. At the same time, it will improve the health of millions of Canadians, while saving the country billions.

In a recent 2023 study, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that such a system would result in $1.4 billion in annual savings. By 2027-28, those savings would rise closer to $2.2 billion.

Others, like University of British Columbia professor Steve Morgan, and Carleton University professor Marc-Andre Gagnon, anticipate much greater annual savings. According to their estimates, pharmacare could save anywhere between $7.3 and $11.4 billion, respectively.

While various experts differ in their projections, all agree that pharmacare, and access to more affordable drugs, will reduce hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

Alas, as transformational as the system would be, the likelihood of it getting implemented, much less enduring beyond the current Liberal tenure in office, appears tenuous at best.

Even if the NDP succeeds in pressuring the Liberals to adopt a universal, single-payer pharmacare system – their preferred system – it may be too late to become effectively entrenched from C/conservative assault.

For the entirety of his eight years in office, Justin Trudeau has had to contend with fierce hostility from the Conservative Party of Canada. They have outright opposed – and even vowed to scrap – almost every policy they deem remotely progressive, regardless of its merit.

Take the carbon tax, for instance.

Knowing how controversial the new tax would be, Trudeau attempted to neutralize its threats. He allowed provinces to create and administer their own carbon pricing systems, sent rebate cheques to low- and middle-income citizens, and bought a multi-billion-dollar pipeline to help justify its existence. Still not satisfied, Trudeau also introduced carbon contracts to, among other things, help secure the survival of his emissions pricing scheme.

If you think that means the tax is safe, though, think again.

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has unequivocally promised to “axe the tax” should he become prime minister. And you can bet he will do the same to a future pharmacare program.

If the NDP wants to ensure pharmacare lives on after this government, they are going to have to demand an end to Liberal tardiness. Already, it may be too late.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.