The Liberal government is hiding the cost of the carbon tax to farmers from Parliament and the public. 

On February 12, 2019, Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said at a CropConnect Conference that she had received a document with data on the tax’s impact. 

According to Blacklock’s Reporter, an Inquiry of Ministry tabled in the House of Commons stated that the contents of the document which contained the costs could not be shared publicly. 

“The data the Minister was referring to was provided to her in a briefing note Information On Carbon Pollution Pricing And Implications For Grain Drying on December 20, 2019. The content in this document is secret, therefore it cannot be shared publicly at this time,” said the Inquiry. 

“The Department was asked to provide a briefing on carbon pollution, including grain drying, pricing impact on producers and also to compare the data received from the Grain Farmers of Ontario to internal data.” 

Estimates by the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association predict carbon price costs for grain drying to be $100 million by 2022. 

“We cannot pass that cost on. Farmers don’t mind paying taxes as long as we’re getting treated equally,” said Jeff Nielsen, chair of the Grain Growers of Canada (GGC). 

According to vice-chair of GGC Shane Stokke, the carbon tax is “punishing” and will cost Prairie farms 8% of their income. 

“Just put this in perspective. A five thousand acre grain farm in Saskatchewan, it will take about $8,000 to $10,000 on their bottom line to pay this bill. This is a punishing cost at a time when we can’t afford it,” said Stokke.  

The federal carbon tax was introduced by the Liberal government in 2017. The government forced the tax on provinces that didn’t implement their own carbon pricing.

The latest government data shows that the carbon tax failed to lower greenhouse gas emissions a year after it was implemented. 

In 2018, greenhouse gas emissions rose by 15 million tonnes, which the government wrote off as a result of “colder winter weather.” 

Several provinces including Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan have launched a constitutional challenge of the federal carbon tax.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada postponed Ontario and Saskatchewan case which was originally planned for March due to the coronavirus pandemic.

University of Guelph’s chancellor Martha Billes resigned from her position after the school passed a motion to divest from fossil fuels. 

According to a university news release, Billes decision to leave was “prompted by the April 22 decision by the University’s Board of Governors to divest from fossil fuels. Billes, who is an ex-officio voting member of the Board, opposed the motion.”

The motion would see money from the university’s $32.4 million endowment fund moved out of fossil fuel reserves and into green projects over a period of five years.

According to Billes, her decision was influenced by her investment in the oil industry in Calgary and her family business Canadian Tire, which was founded by Alfred J. Billes and J. William Billes in 1922. 

“For over 40 years, I have been an investor in business ventures including the oil businesses in my home city of Calgary and my family business, Canadian Tire Corp.” Billes told Global News.

“My decision to resign as chancellor was prompted by the incompatibility of my business interests with the board of governors’ decision to divest from fossil fuel companies in its endowment portfolio.”

The University of Guelph has made several commitments to reduce its investment in the fossil fuel industry, including being a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. 

“Martha has been a devoted ambassador for the university, enthusiastically supporting students and working hard to represent the university to government and the public,” said university President Franco Vaccarino. 

“We appreciate her many contributions, both as chancellor and as a proud U of G alumna.”

Alberta’s oil is taking the scenic route to the east coast.

The Canadian Transportation Agency has approved a request from Irving Oil to ship Alberta oil through the Panama Canal to its New Brunswick refinery – a necessary detour with the absence of a pipeline.

“From Western Canada to offshore Newfoundland, we’re expanding our reach as we continue to pursue solutions that help create energy security for our country,” Irving spokesperson Candice MacLean said to the Financial Post.

Irving Oil applied to the Canadian Transportation Agency for permission to use the canal last month, citing an urgent need to secure Alberta crude oil.

“It is critical to our customers, to our business, and to energy security throughout Atlantic Canada that we are able to use foreign crude oil tankers to access Western Canadian crude oil on an urgent basis and going forward,” Irving chief refining and supply officer Kevin Scott said at the time.

If Canada had been able to build new pipelines in recent years the firm would not be in such a difficult position.

In 2014 TC Energy Corp. proposed the Energy East pipeline. This $15.7 billion project would have brought Alberta oil to the Irving Oil refinery as well as Quebec’s refineries. 

Energy East was permanently shelved in 2017 after intense opposition from the Quebec government and environmental groups.

According to estimates by the Financial Post, Irving tankers going from British Columbia to New Brunswick will travel around 11,771 kilometers — over two-and-a-half times as far as the 4,600 kilometer Energy East route.

In recent years Canada has become more dependent on states like Saudi Arabia, a country with a horrendous human rights record, to supply oil to Canada’s eastern provinces.

Scott says the company may soon source oil from ports along the US Gulf Coast, noting that Canadian oil is often shipped south through US pipelines.

“Canadian oil is also available from Canadian crude producers at Gulf Coast terminals in the United States,” he said. 

“To maintain flexibility with crude suppliers, Irving Oil needs to have the option to acquire Canadian oil both in British Columbia and the Gulf Coast.”

A groundbreaking report by the Five Eyes intelligence alliance sheds light on China’s coronavirus coverup and provides more credibility to the theory that the virus might have leaked from a virology lab. 

Canada is a member of the Five Eyes, along with the US, the UK, New Zealand and Australia. 

The 15-page document goes into detail about the Chinese Communist Party’s lack of transparency and its efforts to downplay the severity of the pandemic. 

It claims that China participated in a “deadly denial of human-to-human transmission.” According to the document, intelligence shows that China knew the virus could spread among humans “from early December,” but chose to deny the claim for over a month. 

During the early stages of the outbreak, Chinese government talking points were parroted by the World Health Organization (WHO), who has been accused of kowtowing to the CCP. 

One tweet by the WHO from January 14 spread the false claim made by Chinese officials that there was no “human-to-human transmission,” despite warnings from Taiwan that it had been detected.

The intelligence dossier also references how the Chinese National Health Commission allegedly ordered that virus samples were to be destroyed and issued a publication ban on the outbreak. 

The dossier alleges the CCP took part in active “suppression and destruction of evidence” and censored news and search engines in an effort to conceal its spread. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has resisted calls to lay blame for the global pandemic with the Chinese government. 

When asked a question about the theory that the coronavirus could have emerged from a laboratory, Trudeau told reporters that it was “too early to draw firm conclusions.” 

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said that there is “significant” evidence that points to a possible lab origin. 

Recently, Chinese Ambassador Cong Peiwu praised Trudeau for having a “cool-headed” approach to China in contrast to alleged US “smears.” 

“China is sharing experience while the U.S. is smearing China. China has actively shared epidemic information and anti-epidemic experience with the WHO and many other countries including Canada.” said Cong. 

“I believe that Canada has adopted a cool-headed approach.”

A Liberal Party of Canada riding president claims comments posted from his Facebook account calling on coronavirus curfew breakers to be “shot on sight” were not written by him. 

The Toronto Sun reported on Saturday that Mark Elyas, the president of the Vancouver East Liberal riding association, posted a rant on the social media platform suggesting that snipers should kill anybody who breaks a mandatory four week-long 24-hour curfew, a proposal advanced by Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte.

“I hate Duerte (sic), but he 100% (sic) right on this one,” the comment says. 

“Shoot people on sight who defy curfew (snipers can be posted anywhere about 2 kms from targets). That will kill the spread of the virus and then we can go back to normal.” 

When questioned about the statement, Elyas denied that he had written them and suggested they were the result of being hacked or a parody account. 

“I did not write those words. Period,” Elyas told the Toronto Sun. 

The comments were deleted shortly after the Toronto Sun brought them to light.

This is not the first time Elyas has got into hot water over questionable statements. 

In 2018, Elyas posted a rant on his personal Facebook account calling all Trump supporters racist and “subhuman pieces of s–.” 

“They need to be rounded up and placed in camps away from public view,” claimed Elyas.

“Their kids should be taken away from them for child abuse.

Elyas then later went on to defend his comments, refusing to resign from his position with the Liberal Party. 

“I will put it out there: I hate Donald Trump and everything he and his supporters represent; mainly white supremacy; racism; misogyny; xenophobia; homophobia; and fascism,” wrote Elyas. 

In other posts, Elyas also suggested that the President of Russia Vladimir Putin is interfering with Canadian elections and that the Conservative Party of Canada has been taken over by “fake Christians.” 

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has criticized the Trudeau government’s gun ban, saying that the government should focus on punishing illegal gun owners if it wants to reduce shootings.

Ford said at a Saturday press conference that gun violence in Ontario is driven by illegal guns smuggled into the province from the United States.

“As law enforcement experts have highlighted time and time again, the only way to truly tackle gun violence is to crack down on the illegal guns being smuggled in daily at our borders,” he said.

On Friday, the Trudeau government announced a ban on 1,500 different variations of firearms. Gun owners will have two years to surrender their guns to the government to receive “fair compensation” as part of a separate plan that hasn’t yet been announced.

The total cost of the buyback program has previously been estimated at $600 million.

Ford says the money used to buy back guns from legal gun owners should go towards strengthening the border to stop gun smugglers. 

“The problem is not legal gun owners, we need to target the smugglers, and we need to throw the book at these gangsters out there terrorizing our streets,” he said.

“I can’t help thinking that money could be put to a much better use hunting down the violent criminals and stopping illegal guns at our border.” 

Members of Canada’s law enforcement community have argued for years that gun bans would be difficult to enforce and that fighting illegal guns should be their priority.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney also criticized the gun ban, saying his government is carefully considering a response that would help protect Albertan gun owners.

While Ford did not say how Ontario will respond to the gun ban, he did offer to work with his federal counterparts to come up with solutions that will address gun violence.

“I’ve made it my mission as premier to target the thugs and the low-lifes that are out there terrorizing innocent people,” he said.

“You think gun violence is going to go down in Toronto? Well, I don’t believe it’s going to go down in Toronto based on taking guns off legal gun owners.”