Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED -- Governments must never be allowed to tax us for more than an adequate amount to provide us with the services they are responsible for; we have lost sight of that axiom


Here's what everyone seems to be missing in the PBO's climate policy math. Arguments over the carbon tax overlook the fact that every alternative comes with its own costs
Aaron Wherry ~~ CBC News ~~ Jun 15, 2019

The simple math of climate policy rarely makes for straightforward politics.

Consider this week's analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), and the respective responses of the Liberals and Conservatives.

Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are projected to decline to 592 megatonnes by 2030 — a significant reduction, but still 79 megatonnes above the target to which this country has committed. In the interests of framing future policy actions, the PBO estimated the sort of additional carbon levy that might be needed to eliminate those remaining megatonnes.

According to the PBO, that new carbon tax, applied broadly, could start at $6 per tonne in 2023 and rise to $52 per tonne by 2030.

The Conservatives were, perhaps predictably, aghast at the suggestion. But that puts Andrew Scheer's Conservative opposition in the odd position of complaining about the cost of meeting an international target that was first established by Stephen Harper's Conservative government — a government in which several of Scheer's frontbenchers were cabinet ministers.



Carbon taxes are an experiment in socialist social engineering. Calculating carbon tax amounts hides something far more sinister. The federal government has no power to impose a carbon tax. 

If this government can force us into accepting carbon taxes as a valid means of reducing oil and gas consumption, it has won an important psychological war.

The next step could be to tax electrical power bills to reduce consumption. That avoids the costs of building new generating facilities to meet increasing demands. A few people will expire from cold in the winter and heat in the summer, but it worked with petroleum; it can work with electricity.

Once the precedent is set, the government has unlimited powers to tax us into submission to its will. If you find that consistent with participatory democracy and governments elected to serve our collective needs, you are more broad-
minded than I.

Governments must never be allowed to tax us for more than an adequate amount to provide us with the services they are responsible for. We have lost sight of that axiom.

We have allowed governments to tax far in excess of what is needed to provide services.

That is the equivalent of handing a minor $1,000 in cash, a bottle of whiskey, keys to a car and wishing him or her a happy evening on the town.

Our electoral system should produce a parliament of sober, responsible people to govern on our behalf. I will repeat; to govern on our behalf, not to govern us. That does not seem to happen. There is too much money sloshing around Ottawa not to tempt governments into spending extravagantly, foolishly and irresponsibly.

The thought of our government taxing us to infringe on our freedom of choice should have us rioting in the streets. Global warming is a trojan horse that make subjecting us to government decree and encroachment on our rights and freedoms look palatable.

It is not ... it is the root of totalitarianism that will replace our democracy if we are not careful.  


John Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...

Stamer: Hope for Forestry Completely Shattered After Another Provincial Review Driven by DRIPA

IMAGE CREDIT:  Provincial Forestry Advisory Council Conservative Critic for Forests Ward Stamer says the final report from the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council confirms the worst fears of forestry workers and communities; instead of addressing the real issues driving mill closures and job losses, the NDP has produced a report that ignores industry realities and doubles down on governance restructuring. Despite years of warnings from forestry workers, contractors, and industry organizations about permitting delays, regulatory costs, fibre access, and the failure of BC Timber Sales, the PFAC report offers no urgency, no timelines, and no concrete action to stop the ongoing decline of the sector. “ This report completely shatters any remaining hope that the government is serious about saving forestry ,” said Stamer.  “ We didn’t need another study to tell us what industry has been saying for years. While mills close and workers lose their livelihoods, the NDP is focused on re...

FORSETH – My question is, ‘How do we decide who is blue enough to be called a Conservative?’

How do we decide who’s blue enough to be a Conservative? AS OF TODAY (Friday January 30 th ), there are now eight individuals who have put their names forward to lead the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Having been involved with BC’s Conservatives since 2010, and having seen MANY ups and downs, having 8 people say “I want to lead the party” is to me, an incredible turn-around from the past. Sadly, however, it seems that our party cannot seem to shake what I, and others, call a purity test of ‘what is a Conservative’. And that seems to have already come to the forefront of the campaign by a couple of candidates. Let me just say as a Conservative Party of BC member, and as someone active in the party, that frustrates me to no end. Conservatives, more than any other political philosophy or belief, at least to me, seems to have the widest and broadest spectrum of ideals.   For the most part, they are anchored by these central thoughts --- smaller and less intru...

Labels

Show more