Starting July 15, British Columbia will prohibit the use of plastic and Styrofoam takeout containers and charge fees for reusable shopping bags as part of its new single-use plastic regulations. Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada president Catherine Swift joined True North’s Andrew Lawton to explain what these regulations mean for British Columbians, and the rest of Canada.
Wab Kinew calls on Trudeau to expedite NATO target ahead of U.S. election
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew is calling for the Trudeau government to step up to its NATO commitments, saying that it’s not just a question of defence but also a sign of good faith with Canada’s biggest trading partner, the U.S.
Canada has come under a great deal of criticism for not meeting its NATO spending targets, particularly from politicians south of the border.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government would meet the 2% of GDP defence budget commitment by 2032 last week, while speaking at the defence treaty’s summit in Washington D.C., amid a whirlwind of scrutiny from NATO members.
However, Kinew said that Canada should hit its NATO spending target sooner, calling for the prime minister to reach the threshold within the next four years.
“I want Canadians to see this as a national security thing. It’s an investment in the Canadian Armed Forces, but I encourage Canadians to think about this also as an investment in trade,” Kinew told reporters at the premiers’ annual summer meeting in Halifax.
“If we’re not meeting our responsibility to our NATO allies, it is going to have an impact on (the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement) renewal. It is gonna have an impact on the relationship.”
The Council of the Federation meeting took time to focus on Canada’s relationship with the U.S. as the country is poised for another presidential election this fall.
U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump has lambasted other countries for not upholding their financial commitments, telling Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to NATO members who fail to do so.
“NATO was busted until I came along,” said Trump at a rally earlier this year. “I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”
Kinew stressed the link between defence and trade because he fears that if Canada doesn’t meet its NATO obligations, then the U.S. could respond by taking punitive measures on the economic front.
“The point that I’m making is we need to invest in national security, but we also need the federal government in this area, clearly a federal responsibility, to do their part,” said Kinew. “I am concerned that if we don’t hit that two per cent target within the next four years … it is going to become a trade issue, it is going to become a trade irritant.”
The premiers released a joint statement stressing the importance of Canada meeting its NATO obligations on Wednesday.
“Canada fulfilling its NATO obligation of defence spending of 2% of GDP is an important element of being a stable ally and strong economic partner,” reads the statement.
Canada currently only spends about 1.3% of its GDP on military spending and according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it will only be spending 1.42% of its GDP towards NATO by 2030.
When asked if he would commit to meeting NATO targets if elected, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said he couldn’t because Canada is “broke.”
“I make promises that I can keep, and right now … our country is broke after nine years of Justin Trudeau,” Poilievre told reporters in Montreal last week. “I’m inheriting a dumpster fire when it comes to the budget.”
“Every time I make a financial commitment, I’m going to make sure I’ve pulled out my calculator and done all the math. People are sick and tired of politicians just announcing that they’re going to spend money without figuring out how they’re going to pay for it.”
Canada’s failure to meet NATO spending has been scrutinized by several American politicians recently, including U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who called the situation “shameful.”
“Shamefully, Canada announced in the last couple days that they won’t be ponying up, they’re not going to do their 2%, why?” Talk about riding on America’s coattails,” said Johnson. “They have the safety and security of being on our border and not having to worry about that. I think it’s shameful.”
Canada can balance the budget while still cutting income taxes: study
Canada could reduce income taxes for most Canadians and still be able to balance the budget if the government cuts spending by 2.3% over the next two years.
According to a Fraser Institute study, the federal government could balance the budget by 2026 if it cuts $11 billion from its annual spending budget. The report found that this would be possible while reducing personal income tax rates for the middle class, thereby stimulating economic growth.
The study recommends how the government can fix the budget, increase economic growth and Canada’s competitiveness, and set guidelines that the feds can adapt to prevent Canada from falling into future deficits.
Grady Munro, a policy analyst at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, told True North that if the government listens to their recommendations, it could reduce the country’s deficit from its expected $39.8 billion this year to a $12.3 billion surplus by 2028 / 2029.
“Canada is dealing with a stagnant economy. Economic growth is not good right now,” Munro said.
Though recommendations on specific cuts were not included in the initial report, Munro identified two areas in which he would recommend the government reduce spending to balance the budget.
“Corporate welfare should be targeted for spending reductions because it represents a significant expenditure on the part of the federal government but does little to promote widespread economic growth,” he said, noting that the government spent $11.2 billion on business subsidies in 2022. “Corporate welfare simply picks winners and losers in the free market and prevents resources from being allocated to their most productive use.”
Munro pointed to government sector employees’ wages as another potential source of spending cuts.
“Government sector employees enjoy an 8.5% wage premium over comparable private sector employees,” he said, referencing past research by the Fraser Institute. We might want to look at that gap to find potential savings.”
According to a report from Canadian Heritage, the CBC will take $1.4 billion from taxpayers this year alone.
The 2.3% cuts would need to be made after the government applied the authors’ recommended changes to personal income taxes.
“By addressing tax rates, we could help kickstart economic growth by addressing our competitiveness problem,” Munro said.
The plan would eliminate the middle three personal income tax brackets of 20.5%, 26%, and 29% and reduce the top marginal rate from 33% to 29% to help attract and retain “highly skilled workers” such as doctors, engineers, and entrepreneurs and improve the economy.
“What Canadians would be left with is a two brackets personal income tax system, where income over $246,000 is taxed at a marginal tax rate of 29%. While everything else is taxed at 15%, so most Canadians will have lower marginal tax rates due to this new structure,” Munro said.
Munro credits Canada’s higher tax rates than the United States or European countries on its “stagnant” economy.
“We propose that the federal government take it a step further. It can adopt fiscal rules that limit the gross annual spending to the rate of population and inflation,” he said.
He said that if the government limits its annual spending to the inflation rate and the population increases, Canada could maintain a balanced budget and even have surpluses.
“We projected a $6.4 billion surplus in 2027/28 and a $12.3 billion surplus in 2028/2029,” Munro said. “We cannot continue running deficits and accumulating debt because that carries costs towards Canadians.”
OP-ED: Humanity needs to get a grip on AI
The old adage that we should “begin with the end in mind” is still great advice, especially when it comes to new technology.
Consider the invention of the lightbulb and the widespread electrification of society. Here was a technology with a clear and unambiguous purpose – to illuminate a world that went dark when the sun went down.
“The days of my youth extend backward to the dark ages,” observed British inventor Joseph Swan, one of the first men to successfully harness electric light. “Common people, wanting the inducement of indoor brightness … went to bed soon after sunset.” Swan’s prototype was a model for Thomas Edison’s far more successful lightbulb. It set off a technological revolution that unleashed great benefits to society, even if it inconvenienced a few candle makers.
Today’s technological revolution – the rapid advance of artificial intelligence (AI) – displays no such clarity of purpose. As we race to create new uses for AI throughout the economy, no one seems to know exactly where we’re going, or what the world will look like when we get there. Even Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI and a key player in the AI revolution, is disturbingly flippant and honest about this reality. Last year he told TIME magazine that, “No one knows what happens next.”
AI could pose a threat to the future of humanity itself – we simply don’t know. While current concerns about AI revolve around deepfake videos and autonomous vehicles, we need to realize there are much greater issues at stake.
Experts such as self-described philosopher and ethicist Amanda Askell suggest AI may soon be able to do “whatever intellectual work humans currently do.” What happens when AI replaces not just factory workers and cashiers, but the CEO of the company as well?
There are serious consequences to replacing the entirety of human labour with machines, including a loss of self-esteem and life purpose as well as many economic considerations. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is: does AI actually make humanity better off?
Further ethical dilemmas abound as we approach the not-so-distant shore of a world driven by AI. As machines become smarter, how do we ensure that they reflect human values? Technology optimists like to claim AI is purer and more objective than messy human morality, and will thus help us upgrade our deficient innate operating software.
“I think the problem is that human values as they stand don’t cut it,” said Google Research executive Blaise Agüera y Arcas. “They’re not good enough.”
Agüera y Arcas believes it is possible to use computer code to create a better moral framework than what humans can provide. But even then, someone has to decide how to build such a machine; who will train computers to be better than humans themselves? And what happens when some artificially intelligent machine achieves moral superiority to man? Are we to bow before our new digital masters?
Meanwhile, AI research is being driven by the same tech culture which makes a virtue out of “breaking stuff” and “failing fast.” As AI scholar Kate Crawford points out, most AI development today goes on without any review or oversight of the ethics involved. We need to fix this.
One way would be to require a regulatory framework for software developers modeled on the current system for professional engineers who design bridges and build roads. This would ensure those who build AI are instructed in the ethical implications of their work and held to account through strict standards and regulations.
But placing new restrictions on AI developers is only a first step. If we are going to truly grapple with the ethical considerations of our current AI revolution, society-at-large must come to terms with its own morality. “A state is not a mere casual group,” the ancient philosopher Aristotle once observed. Rather it is a community of shared understandings and beliefs. But how can we answer the question whether AI-generated pornography is ethical, for example, when we don’t even agree on whether porn itself is ethical?
Before we can instruct a machine to act morally, we need to define what it means for a human to be moral. Unfortunately, it is apparent throughout the Western world today that there is no collective agreement on what is good. Our current political debates focus on identifying oppressors and oppressed, while ideologies like critical race theory encourage tribal identities. All this is a rejection of the West’s Judeo-Christian foundations. Our confusion about the ethics of AI is thus a symptom of a deeper societal malaise. Amidst the rise of artificial intelligence, it is paramount that we align our own values before trying to assign such values to machines.
Instead of AI for AI’s sake, we want AI for humanity’s sake.
D.C.C. (Danny) Randell is an Alberta writer specializing in technology and society. The longer original version of this essay first appeared at C2CJournal.ca.
Feds’ emissions reduction plan hurts economy, fails to meet objectives: study
Despite the Liberals making emission reduction a cornerstone of their climate agenda, Canada is projected to fall short of its carbon targets while also harming the Canadian economy.
A new report by the Fraser Institute has concluded that the Trudeau government’s plan to reduce emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 will not be met and policies set to achieve that goal will cap economic growth. As a result, wages will fall, and the average Canadian is set to lose thousands of dollars.
According to the report, if Canada were to meet the Liberals’s 2030 emission reduction target and drop emissions below 40% of 2005 greenhouse gas emissions, this would contribute to a drop in global average temperatures by 0.007°C by 2100 compared to if Canada took no action.
However, according to the report, Canada is only projected to reduce its emissions by 26.5% from 2019 emission levels. This analysis factors in the impact of the carbon tax, the clean fuel regulations, and the vast slate of Trudeau government regulations including the electric vehicle mandate, the oil and gas sector emission regulations, the fertilizer use regulations, and more.
These regulations do not have a neutral effect on the economy argued Fraser Institute economists, as economic growth, wage growth, and employment levels are all impacted.
By 2030, the average cost of the Trudeau government’s climate policies will amount to $6,700 annually per Canadian worker in 2019 dollars, or $7,933.82 in 2024. While the carbon tax is found to cost workers $1,302 annually, the clean energy regulations and other climate regulations are found to be significantly more harmful.
Without the litany of Trudeau government climate policies, Canada’s GDP is projected to grow by 29.3% from 2019 to 2030 but is only projected to grow by 21.3%, a 6.2% loss in GDP over the decade.
This would have the effect of reducing real wage growth for Canadian workers by 5.5% compared to a scenario where the Trudeau government regulations do not exist. This means that all real wage growth would effectively be counteracted, and would drop earnings per worker 1.6% below 2022 levels.
Not only would Canadian wages take a hit, but the emission reduction policies would also result in a reduction of 164,000 jobs as of 2030, with the carbon tax alone contributing to 57,000 of these job losses.
The Trudeau government has attempted to reason that their climate agenda would provide economic benefits to Canadian workers while mitigating the costs that severe climate events pose on Canadians.
However, the report disputes these claims, showing that the government has provided misleading information when it comes to severe weather events while failing to provide a cost-benefit analysis to support its claims.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has promised to scrap the carbon tax, though he has not made it clear whether or not he supports repealing the Trudeau government’s various climate regulations.
China bids for Canadian mining firm, skirting national security review threshold
China’s Zijin Mining Group is set to acquire a significant minority stake in the Canadian mining company Montage Gold Corp.
The Chinese mining giant, which counts a state-owned investment company as its largest shareholder, will purchase 32.7 million shares of the Canadian company, representing a 9.9% stake.
At a price of C$1.75 per share, it adds up to an investment of approximately C$57.3 million.
This deal, expected to close by Aug. 12, comes on the heels of China’s commitment to expand its global hold on the metals and critical mineral mining sector.
The transaction unfolds against the backdrop of Canada’s heightened scrutiny of foreign investments under the revised Investment Canada Act, particularly concerning national security risks by geopolitical adversaries.
Despite this regulatory tightening, Montage Gold maintains that the deal with Zijin does not require Canadian government approval.
The company’s rationale hinges on three key points: the stake acquired remains below the 10% threshold, gold is not yet classified as a critical mineral within Canada, and Montage’s operational assets are situated beyond Canadian borders.
This development is particularly noteworthy given the recent history of foreign investment in Canada’s critical mineral sector.
In 2022, the Canadian government mandated the divestiture of investments by three Chinese firms in critical minerals, citing national security concerns.
Moreover, earlier in the year, Zijin Mining itself withdrew from a potential acquisition of a 15% stake in Solaris Resources, a move influenced by Canada’s stringent foreign investment standards.
The Canadian government has signalled that significant transactions involving critical minerals will be greenlit only under exceptional circumstances to ensure the protection of natural resources critical to security and economic success.
While gold is not currently deemed a critical mineral, prominent voices including former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Richard Fadden have called for the metal to be added to the list.
Interim spy chief authored report branding parental rights advocates as extremists
The new interim director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service authored a report maligning concerns about gender ideology as a domestic security threat.
While serving as deputy director of operations, Vanessa Lloyd, now the first woman to lead Canada’s spy agency following the resignation of David Vigneault, previously led a 2023 public report by CSIS titled “Mission Focused: Confronting the Threat Environment.” The report identified the anti-gender ideology movement as a significant extremist threat to Canada.
It claimed violent threats posed by the anti-gender movement would persist into the coming year, specifically referencing the 2023 attack at the University of Waterloo by international student Geovanny Villalba-Aleman. Villalba-Aleman entered a gender studies class with a weapon and injured two students and a professor.
“CSIS assesses that the violent threat posed by the anti-gender movement is almost certain to continue over the coming year and that violent actors may be inspired by the University of Waterloo attack to carry out their own extreme violence against the 2SLGBTQIA+ community or against other targets they view as representing the gender ideology agenda,” the report states.
True North reached out to CSIS for comment and a spokesperson for the agency stressed that their mandate was to investigate threats of serious violence while respecting rights.
“CSIS is charged with investigating activities that seek to use serious violence to pursue a political, religious or ideological objective, or violent extremism. Unfortunately, Canada has seen a rise in the threat posed by violent extremism, particularly Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism,” said CSIC spokesperson Eric Balsam.
“IMVE includes gender-driven, xenophobic, anti-authority and other grievance-driven violence. CSIS assesses that only a small portion of adherents to any movement are willing to engage in serious violence. CSIS’ latest Public Report outlines specific examples of gender-driven violence whether the Toronto Spa Attack or the Waterloo Attack.”
The document emphasized that while violent rhetoric alone does not necessarily lead to physical violence, the combination of such rhetoric with other extreme worldviews makes incitement more likely.
“CSIS assesses that exposure to entities espousing anti-gender extremist rhetoric could inspire and encourage serious violence against the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, or against those who are viewed as supporters of pro-gender ideology policies and events,” the report concluded.
This isn’t the first time CSIS has indicated that the agency was closely monitoring the activities of activists and groups associated with the parental rights movement, especially those opposing radical gender ideology.
Earlier this year, documents from the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, responsible for preventing terrorist activities in Canada, lumped the “Freedom Movement” in with extremist organizations including QAnon and neo-Nazi groups.
“Anti-2SLGBTQl+ narratives remain a common theme in violent rhetoric espoused by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, the Freedom Movement, and networks such as Diagolon and QAnon,” the report noted.
Despite CSIS’s focus on monitoring such rhetoric, the report did not address the violence often faced by those protesting against gender ideology. Notable incidents include physical attacks and intimidation against parental rights protesters, such as the case involving teenage activist Josh Alexander in Calgary.
The Alberta Roundup | Smith says the left’s vision is bleak
Today on the Alberta Roundup with Rachel Parker, Rachel explains why Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is right to call the left’s vision bleak. Rachel also explained why having children is so important.
Later on the show, Rachel has an update about wildfires, and breaks down a controversy brewing in Edmonton after it was revealed that UCP ministers and staff accepted Edmonton Oilers’ playoff tickets. Finally, she responds to some of your comments.
Tune into the Alberta Roundup now!
LAWTON: Olivia Chow blames Toronto floods on climate change
On Tuesday, Toronto was hit with major flooding after three consecutive thunderstorms brought a record-breaking amount of rainfall, resulting in severely flooded streets and large-scale damage. Toronto Sun columnist Brian Lilley joined True North’s Andrew Lawton to explain why municipal leaders, including Mayor Olivia Chow, are blaming climate change for Tuesday’s flooding.
Danielle Smith calls on Liberals for immigration support
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is urging the federal government to provide substantial support to address the overwhelming influx of immigrants into the province.
Despite housing starts increasing in Alberta by 60% last year, it still wasn’t nearly enough to keep up with immigration, which saw 200,000 people come to Alberta in 2023. The housing starts were enough to accommodate around 100,000 people, said Smith.
Immigration to Alberta was bolstered by the province’s Alberta is Calling campaign, which Smith implemented after 13 quarters of outward migration from the province.
“We now have, by our numbers, about 22% of newcomers seeking to come to Alberta, even though we’re only about 12% of the population, and there’s a lot of pressure that goes along with that,” said Smith.
The comments were made to True North during a brief conference as Smith attended the annual opening of Klondike Days in Edmonton.
“We would ask, along with Quebec, for the federal government to assist us with the funding, with emergency income support, with emergency hotel support, assisting with English as a second language learning, making sure that people have appropriate healthcare, as well,” said Smith.
She added that newcomers mean new families, increasing the burden on the education system. She said that she intends to build many more schools to meet the demand.
According to Smith, Alberta’s influx of immigrants has resulted in 22,500 new unfunded students.
“We believe that there is a pace of growth that is sustainable. I think people are feeling the pressure now. I would hope that the federal government would be able to assist us in the same way that they have in Quebec,” said Smith.
All of Canada’s provincial and territorial premiers met at the recently concluded 2024 Council of the Federation in Halifax. During the closing news conference, Quebec Premier François Legault raised his concerns about the number of asylum seekers entering Quebec.
Smith said that Alberta welcomed 70,000 Ukrainian asylum seekers last year. She reiterated Quebec’s point, stating that anyone shouldering the additional pressures of a large influx of asylum seekers should be supported.
Alberta’s premier said that conversations with the federal government to address specific pressures with support are ongoing.
Legault was not the only premier who raised concerns at the council meeting.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said he was particularly open to receiving francophone asylum seekers to bolster the provincial francophone community.
“In order for us to be able to collaborate effectively with Quebec or Ontario or other regions, we really need the federal government, who have the fiscal resources to be able to move the needle here, to do so,” said Kinew.
New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs said that he doesn’t understand the Liberal government’s immigration policies and that immigration in his province has exploded threefold in the last few years.
“I think we’re all kind of bursting at the seams in relation to keeping up with housing. We’re getting pushback from many citizens about the cost, affordability, and the availability,” he said.
Legault said that it’s not fair that Quebec receives $750 million while other provinces get nothing despite a large number of asylum seekers coming to their provinces.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford said that his province spends over $1 billion annually on asylum seekers but only received $162 million from the Liberals. Money aside, he said that asylum seekers are waiting too long for work permits, forced to live in hotels and unable to work.
“It’s heartbreaking. They want a better life. They want to work like everyone else and contribute to society. They’re really good folks. We need support from the federal government,” said Ford.
True North previously reported that 2.2 million newcomers immigrate to Canada every year, after accounting for permanent residents, temporary foreign workers, international students, and illegal immigrants.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said that immigration will be “much lower” if he’s elected.
