Tag: economy

Right-wing hysteria over the carbon tax their movement invented the worst of Canadian politics

Thing 1: carbon pricing is a good idea that conservatives invented and they should proudly own it. Instead, we’re in this surreal hellscape where they’ve disavowed their idea, labelled it as the “Liberal carbon tax” and are campaigning hard against it.

To be clear, it was under the federal Liberal Party that the government passed the carbon tax legislation that attached a price to carbon consumption which applied nationwide – except where a province had their own plans which substantially meets the same goals.

BC had their own, Alberta (under the NDP) had their own, Quebec, Ontario (under their previous Liberal gov’t) had their own – of the large provinces.

Ousting the provincial NDP gov’t in Alberta and subsequent defeat of the Ontario Liberals brought conservative regimes to power in both provinces. For reasons unknown to logic, they both repealed their own carbon pricing regime – with triggered the federal one to be imposed.

They handed control over this file TO the Federal Liberals and Justin Trudeau…for which they attack him for now.

Now, I get the electoral politics here; it is politically expedient to align against a program enacted by your political opponent. There is a short term benefit to that in the context of polling to be sure. But the longer term side effect is ones credibility.

But the elephant in the room is the fact that carbon pricing is intended to act as a consumption tax (the form of tax that conservatives generally support), that is supposed to be revenue neutral. Carbon pricing dings the consumption, rewards the reductions we make in our carbon footprint. Any excess therein is generally redistributed in forms of tax relief and various rebates/credits to offset the financial burden of the various carbon taxes at the lowest income scales.

That was the idea behind carbon pricing. Philosophically, it’s a good idea and yes, the devil is in the details.

The crux of the current debate is the scheduled increase on April 1, 2024 of the per-tonne carbon rate. The detractors calculate that as a 23% increase. Sure, we’ll take that argument at face value.

But this is no ordinary tax, and the reasons for it aren’t specifically for basic revenue generation reasons.

Thing 2: why we have carbon pricing.

Look around you. The effects of climate change are only disputed by small cabal who would argue that the world is also only 6,000 years old.

We have once-in-a-lifetime climate events every year now. BC has had several record wildfire seasons in the last decade at the cost of billions of dollars each – and that’s just the cost of fighting the fire. The other costs are the post-fire repairs, mitigation, compensation, and effects on the economy where the fires damage timber supply to our forestry sector; or other important agriculture operations. Same problem for the atmospheric rivers – which entered BC’s weather lexicon in the last few years as catastrophic rains and flooding diplace towns, farms, disrupt transportation links, etc.

Private and public insurance rates increase as a result of the redemption of insurance policies made necessary by climate triggered damages. The effect the bottom line for business and families are sure to be felt with higher premiums, or taxpayer supported bailouts when insurance companies fail to deliver on their policies.

These are the costs of climate change. There’s no hope that this cost decreases so long as we don’t take this seriously.

Thing 3: Anti-tax propaganda and hypocrisy of the far right.

To hear the rhetoric of the opponents, the carbon tax rates are to be increasing by almost 20¢ per litre for regular gasoline. That’d be huge – if it was true.

Spoiler: its a lie.

2.69¢ per litre is a far cry from the 18¢ being pushed by conservative propagandists.

To be sure, few people will willingly embrace any tax increase, though most people accept that taxes are necessary. But if we’re to debate tax policy, let’s start out from a position of honesty. Conservatives are absolutely not being honest. But that’s their trademark: lie about something, then campaign about the thing that isn’t true…make it about big government hurting the little guy.

The problem is that government has a requirement under our constitution to do what it can to protect society; and climate change – the effects therein, are a real – existential threat to Canada and the world around us. By having conservatives undermine the threat of climate change, they’re putting society at grave harm.

The harm isn’t specific to flooding in leftwing BC coastal areas from atmospheric rivers and rising sea levels, the harm is also the droughts affecting interior, northern and prairie agricultural sectors. These are small towns and rural areas that the conservatives call their base of support. Watch and see how absent these politicians become once their farming towns are decimated from a raging wildfire made possible by soils and plants dried out from a lack of snow and spring rains.

Thing 4: the carbon tax is a consumption tax, something that conservatives generally like.

Think of the GST. I remember that chaos of an introduction in 1989/90 when the then PC Party government under Brian Mulroney replaced the Manufacturers Sales tax with the GST.

The revenue haul from that tax is substantial. Ottawa collects a gross $48 billion annually from the GST. The GST credit, designed for low income adults in Canada costs up to $5 billion annually. That’s a staggering profit. All leftover revenue goes to the general funds of the nation and finance whatever is deemed appropriate in the annual budget.

The Carbon Tax is different. It’s supposed to be revenue neutral, and it largely is; but its purpose driven. In Canada, where the federal carbon tax is collected from; the proceeds are turned around and remitted back to the provinces where they originated.

In BC, where the carbon tax revenue allocations are spelled out; well over half is returned in a ‘climate change’ credit, and the remainder is split between an electric vehicle rebate program (on the purchase of a new zero emission vehicle), a BC Hydro rebate to install heat pumps, and funds to assist in carbon friendly retrofits. In both cases, federal and provincial, while not exactly as revenue neutral – they come awfully close…and a lot closer than the GST which is the original consumption tax in Canada.

Summary

Conservatives are trying to position the carbon tax issue merely as a political one; where they’re seen as the good guys trying to hold back the ever-oppressive federal government from taxing citizens into oblivion. It is that over simplification that gets played over and over and over in the media and we’ve stopped talking about what is really at stake.

The controversy of carbon pricing is that it shouldn’t be controversial. The goals and means are clearly stated, and the evidence that its working is also just as compelling.

Sure, nobody likes it when things cost more, but that is the taxation model of carbon pricing; increase the price through the tax, decrease demand. The “23%” increase looming this April 1 equates to 2.69 cents/litre in BC which has so many folks upset, but nobody says anything when big oil jacks the price up by 30 or 45cents over the span of a couple weeks for no reason.

We’re set to judge our political leaders in the coming months over policies and performance based on how we feel in the moment. But we are going to be judged by our children and grandchildren by our failure to act when we fully knew better.

It’s time to stop being influenced by the here-and-now politics, and be swayed by the do-the-right-thing planning for the future.

My2bits

The far right’s anti-immigrant narrative gave a permission structure to the Trudeau Liberals to cap foreign students wishing to come to Canada to study

Political triangulation is a thing that centrists know well; it’s where you adopt a position of your opponent to appear pragmatic, denying the opponent a position to attack from, then paint them as the extremists unworthy of your vote.

There are exceptions to this rule. Adopting policies which are inherently racist or bigoted in nature should be avoided.

But these are desperate times for the federal Liberals.

There’s an undercurrent of resentment in various western nations about “foreigners” who “come here and take [x, y, z] from our own folks and we need to take it back”.

What they’re not telling you is that politicians who follow through with these anti-foreigner policies aren’t interested in providing “for our own”, they’re just full of hate towards the different looking folks and used a right-wing populist mythology to score your vote from you.

The joke is on you.

It’s a hard truth that every province relied on a mix of foreign students (who pay full rates) to help subsidize domestic students who were largely subsidized.

Ottawa has unleashed a policy change to severely restrict the number of foreign students under the pretense that they want to stop the “cash cow” of milking foreign students of money (at full tuition rates).

This is going to ring popular in certain voting blocks to be sure; but popular doesn’t always mean ‘right’.

This policy change won’t open up those former seats in universities to domestic students..the extra money that subsidized the domestic seats the rest of our students chase after has been chased away.

If anything, expect that tuition rates in many provinces to either go up – or enrollment to decrease.

Right wing populism has real world negative consequences, I just didn’t expect that to flow from federal Liberals – not this blatant at least.

There is one upside though. It will help fully expose the funding shortfall that government at every level is guilty of when it comes to post secondary education.

Short term rental exploitation are damaging our economy and more

Along with millions in my generation and those born every generation before, we were told that by hard work and sacrifice, we could earn our place in this world. Buy a house, raise a family, pass a legacy on to our children.

Along comes an app and business model that seeks to exploit the housing market in such a way that it denies the opportunity of others to participate in the economy.

This isn’t just about money. But its financial effect has been crippling for far more than those who make money from it.

To summarize, AirBnB (along with a handful of other websites/apps) allowed a property owner to list suites, condos, houses as short term rentals; ostensibly as competition to hotels. In the beginning, it was just that. One could rent a house for the family if on vacation for a week – instead of a hotel. Or renting a room for a few days as a business professional only in town for a seminar.

Then the housing market went from hot to stupid.

We have a housing shortage for folks ready and able to participate; but are priced out of the market because it makes some people a LOT of money to buy up the properties and flip them into temporary, short term rentals.

There was no limit to how many properties one could own and list as STR’s, so long as you had the resources to buy them in the first place. That itself added to the upward pressure on housing prices.

Even as the industry is genuinely responding to high demand for housing and building more homes, the homes largely didn’t end up for sale for traditional home sales, but as a commodity haul for investors to sweep up and pad their inventory.

This business model has made it impossible except for the one-percent income earners to participate in the market. This had never been the case for all of the history of the post war economy from 1945 onwards.

Again.

Housing became a commodity, not just places for families to live.

Potential homeowners are not opposed to paying fair market value for a house; neither are renters who have reasonable incomes. Its that the going rates for buying or renting outpaced average wages by exponential factors and its just wrong.

The Govt has entered the chat.

Public pressure to ‘build more homes’ and ‘do something for renters, first time home buyers’ is one of those files that was going to be political quicksand no matter how it was approached.

But not this time.

The government has been dumping billions into affordable, low cost, urgent home building – largely to grapple with the unhoused. But it needed a tool to combat the problem at the core.

Short term rentals were the problem.

Suddenly it came into view. You can do largely what you want with your property that you live on. But to own large swaths of homes and condos that are excluded from the rental market – that’s just not ok…and the gov’t can outlaw it.

So that is what they have done.

Starting in May 2024, cities and towns set aside in the provincial regulatory change will have STR restrictions to the home-owners property itself. Cities outside that list may opt into it. Some are indicating that they plan to do just that.

Short term rentals have affected businesses because its forced them to pay higher than usual wages as its impossible to source local talent to run the shops and services in areas saturated with STR’s. Nobody on average wages can afford the high premium rates that STR’s charge for nightly rates, and buying into the market is just unreasonable for someone earning less than $40/h these days…if there’s supply to choose from.

The reforms now pending are not an attack on private property rights. Government, either local or provincial, have always had the right to impose land use regulations; and this version is in response to an industry needing regulations.

Do folks have the right to buy multiple properties? Yes…and that won’t change once the new rules take effect. What is different is that folks doing so would have to put those properties into the long term rental market.

Oh, what’s that? You don’t want to be a landlord? Cool. Then sell your surplus properties so that maybe someone else has a fighting chance to live in a home they can own too.

The NDP are responding to a problem made infinitely worse by short term rentals; and there are likely some who will feel some heat by this. Not everyone involved is a high rolling investment firm; some are small players who gambled with some extra funds in buying another home or five. But my sympathies for those folks are held in check by the outrage I feel at a generation mathematically excluded from anything remotely middle class thanks to a greed-based business model.

Seriously. The business model that sustained short term rentals was the overheated real estate market in BC (and other parts of North America).

There is a high probability that folks affected by these changes will organize and probably file legal challenges; probably looking for compensation. But there’s nothing in the regulatory changes that affect a person’s right to own and profit from their own personal property. There’s no right, however, that guarantees you a profit margin off secondary and subsequent properties under this flawed model. But they’re free to make the argument if they wish.

What I would bet money on is the copycats in other jurisdictions also looking to solve the same housing riddle. This is a good idea and a game changer. I hope it succeeds.

I am tired of this. Homes are for families to live in; not as a commodity for trading. Cracking down on real estate speculation, empty home taxes and now reining in the short term rental market.

Lets build homes for people to live in – like our parents and grandparents did. Its that simple.

my2bits

So be it, Alberta.

So you’ve gone and reelected your UCP to a second term in power tonight.

I’m not from Alberta, never lived there, but I can’t help but feel some disappointment for large swaths of your province.

Your government, headed by a science/medical professional skeptic who has pledged to undermine public healthcare is bolstered with a fresh mandate to burn the thing down.

By tapping into an undercurrent of distrust of the feds, wilful ignorance of constitutional law means another predictable clash with Justin Trudeau. A clash the UCP will almost certainly lose…then blame on the corruption of the eastern elite.

Nothing really changes. But the people will suffer. The Alberta healthcare system is in crisis too. But their solution is to attack the front line workers trying to get the job done. There’s profound consequences to this policy direction.

When it comes to oil and gas, as an industry, I fear for Alberta. They should be adapting now, not fighting against the winds of change. Electric vehicle manufacturing is on the way up; and the requirement to do so is a federal mandate. Not that it matters, it’s a change made by a vehicle manufacturing industry which will have a devastating impact to the oil patch.. because their government lives in denial. So now Alberta will put even more eggs into this basket. Must be nice when the price of oil is so high. This trend doesn’t last forever, by the way.

But, who am I to tell the Alberta voter they’re wrong? I won’t. You’ll get to discover that. One painful step at a time.

My2bits

Racism and bigotry are gaining again

And we are worse off for it.

By now you’ve been well acquainted with ‘wokeism’ and the smear the far right have coined against anyone or anything that highlights systemic injustices faced by minorities and the historically oppressed.

But the opposite of ‘woke’ isn’t merely to disagree. The folks on the right are actively moving legislative agendas to literally criminalize the very people that the “woke” identify as being under attack…justifying the social activism of the left.

But the right doesn’t care. The far right has some natural advantages here. There are severe economic pressures and genuine anxiety in society in the slow recovery from the pandemic.

As predicted, the economy bounced back very quickly once the various pandemic restrictions came off, but it seems to have bounced too far and too fast…and its left many behind.

Income disparities, housing crisis, hardcore drug use, and global crisis’ such as climate change and war are on everyone’s’ mind, but true to form – the far right’s response isn’t to offer solutions, its to find a scapegoat.

To believe the far right, its the Woke (the activists who raise awareness on social inequalities and injustices) who are causing banks to fail; making housing expensive, exploit the vulnerable, etc. Arguments that flop with the slightest amount of scrutiny.

Its the same tactic of a certain nationalist party from Germany in the 1930’s led by a former Austrian corporal who pinned blame for all things on the Jews of the world as his scapegoat.

That scrutiny however, as it comes in the form of media inquiries and fact checks – is promptly spun around into the typical victim complex that the right wing has perfected in the sense that they are the victims of witch-hunts and ‘cancelling’…when in reality, every allegation of theirs is a confession.

To be fair however, centrist politicians fail at addressing crisis’ which allows extremists to rise as they offer extreme solutions to poorly understood problems.

Its just that the yardstick is different when measuring up what might be proposed from the left vs the right.

There is an expectation for those on the left that whatever they propose will be a perfect solution, but the right doesn’t get that sort of scrutiny – so its populist and vile talking points are given FAR more weight than anything on the left…even if the left is correct.

We’re seeing banks fail; a call back to the 2008 subprime lending scandal that threw the world into a near depression; but what the right wing isn’t telling you is that the bank crashes are linked to their repeal and Trumps signing of bills that repealed the Frank – Dodd regulations that were to prevent such stupidity from happening again.

It was a move from the left to regulate big banks and the investment community to ensure such disasters don’t happen again; it was because the regulations were removed that the stage was set for a return of risky behaviors which landed in a handful of banks failing – and crumbling investor confidence.

There is no justification on earth to exploit children, they have a right to live their best life and grow into young adults where they can make their own decisions.

But lets be honest. Historically, and in the current context, there are far more people generically conservative who groom children – or far worse. Vile people people aren’t specific to one group or another, its just that you end up finding more from a conservative ilk than not. Reminding of this fact gets you hate and death threats however, as they run out of coherent things to say.

I am the last person to argue for a crackdown on free speech; in fact I would argue that the remedy for awful speech is more people speaking out against it. But there are elements in our society who do not deserve a platform.

Neo-Nazis do not get equal billing in the round table of ideas. They are the modern standard bearer of genocidal murderers who need their mouths sewn shut, forever. That goes for any ‘group’ who calls for laws to exclude, nullify, attack, imprison, or otherwise demonize anyone in society just for being who they are.

There are legitimate grievances by left or right on the economy, social issues and immigration, national defense, etc. So have fulsome debate in the democratic forum, formulate plans and offer them as a platform: how is your party’s idea better than the rest and how will your changes benefit everyone? Lets have those debates.

But those ideas need to be rational, backed by data and a coherent philosophy. Should those ideas come at the expense of other you scapegoat or wish to deport, enslave or murder? Then you’re a fascist.

We don’t accommodate fascists.

Ever.

my2bits

Another lap around the big flaming gas bag at the centre of our universe

We’re in the final hours of 2022, and to many, glad to be done with it. The new year awaits, but how are we going to be any different than 2020-22? Excusing the fact that a global pandemic interrupted our world, what have we learned?

Some might argue that the pandemic brought out the worst in society; I would argue that it merely ripped the bandage off and exposed society’s rot which has always been there.

The divisions and distrust in society didn’t happen because of covid19, or which party controls congress, or the house of commons. These divisions, barriers and the like have happened because society looks at each other and finds blame in others for what is going wrong out there and not looking inward and asking – how can I make a difference.

The great thing about the human species is that we are infinitely capable of learning though. We’ve spent years pointing fingers and avoiding the mirror. We can change this, in fact if you want 2023 to be different than ’22 and earlier – this self reflection and evaluation is necessary.

This doesn’t excuse bad people, doing bad things from the accountability due their lot. This also doesn’t mean that others, not necessarily doing bad things, standing on their self granted soap box and pointing a finger in moral judgement.

We’re at a place in history now where many large problems have been exposed because of our collective failure to deal with them as small problems.

What we need is a consensus in society to deal with these matters because they’re no longer avoidable. Solutions won’t necessarily be easy or comfortable, but the sooner we get to it – the better.

This message won’t land well who profit from peddling fear and hate. I don’t care. Those folks offer no solutions, they offer blame, and as influencers – they can make a lot of useless noise.

Sift out the noise of hatred, fear, division, distraction. Listen to each other.

Turn the page.

All together. Now.

My2bits

The role of elected leaders in collective bargaining is to let the parties negotiate without interference.

Generally speaking, voters outside the anti-union right wing tend to support pro-labour parties.

That said, we don’t expect or demand that a government ‘from our side’ to deal out the best terms and big cash settlements (in public sector bargaining) or unduly pressure corporations in the private sector, but that the bargaining teams finally sit across from each other as equals to hammer out terms of a new contract.

In fact, I offer praise and respect when political leaders and elected officials get FAR away from the stage in these contract talks – despite the lure of getting involved.

Its too easy to meddle and put ones finger on the scale when you’re in a position of power. When the BC Liberals were in office, they ran advertising (as taxpayer supported gov’t ads) demonizing the BCTF as demanding items outside of the “affordability zone” as then Education Minister Peter Fassbender often said.

What incentive do employer-negotiators have to move off an entrenched position when their political master underwrites their argument in public like that.

Bad faith.

That is why I appreciate this current government and its effective radio silence in the various public sector negotiations now underway. This respectful tone has allowed the potential of an HEU tentative agreement (with 60k healthcare sector employees).

It doesn’t mean that either side won’t trot out some talking points to pressure the other side by means of public opinion, but there’s well documented risks of negotiating in public – especially if both sides pledge not to do that.

I will say that activists on one side or another can complicate matters for their respective bargaining teams. They don’t act as official spokespersons for the union or employer group, and most often are not even members of said organizations. Free expression is a funny thing, ain’t it?

Having political leaders butt out of negotiations and leaving the parties to settle their own terms isn’t a guarantee of a perfect deal. There’s a 100% guarantee that even if the HEU deal goes through, some folks in the union will argue that they could have got more. Likewise, anti-unionists and rightwingers alike will argue that the deal goes to far.

Pay no attention to those voices.

What matters most is that both sides were free to settle matters free from government interference or coercion and that the members get to decide how this plays out.

my2bits

Neo-liberalism will not save us

This may come as a surprise to many, but the economic upheavals we’re experiencing today were destined to happen long ago. They’ve just been made more profound and extreme by the pandemic.

But we came so close to getting it. So close. The inherent weaknesses in capitalism’s true form, neoliberalism, were laid bare for all to see.

Civic planners and emergency protocols forced the hand of governments to place mobility restrictions and interrupted the economy at the outset of the pandemic. Government responded with some short term assistance, but has largely pulled back everything.

What has happened is that the biggest corporations and wealthiest among us made off with the trillions of assistance dollars made available while housing is pushed even further out of reach for most people.

Workers are just awakening to their actual power just at a time that the inflationary bubble is about to be popped by Wall street and impoverish millions of us.

Mark my words, in the coming weeks and months, neoliberals in their pet parties (federal Liberal and Conservatives) will push the talking point that “we’re living beyond our means” and shift to austerity mode.

Again.

We didn’t cause this financial mess. They did.

This was the opportunity to correct some historic wrongs. We could have created a basic income – at the very least for folks living with disabilities. We could have imposed significant wealth taxes. We could have expanded the social safety net to include dental care. We could have made billions of dollars in investments to public transportation, shifting away from fossil fuels. We could have done so much.

Instead, we’re having arguments whether women should have the right to make independent medical decisions for themselves. (of course they should, this shouldn’t even be a thing).

We’re back to a culture war that divides folks along emotional/religious boundaries while the bandits run off with our national wealth and power.

To be clear, there is no ‘both sides’ of human rights. You are either for the protection of human rights or you’re in favour of taking them away from folks. This isn’t a ‘difference of opinion’ matter. Expanding and protecting human rights is right, taking them away is simply wrong.

The disgusting part of this social culture war is that conservatives have seen fit to include pandemic politics into this madhouse. Once upon a time, conservatives were rational leaders too, while many had different social views than the rest of us – they didn’t question vaccine science.

By crass opportunism or calculation, they’ve moved their big tent posts to grab some of those vaccine skeptical voters along with conspiracy theorists to push narratives that defy logic. Narratives that paint their opposition as fascist, etc.

To any educated mind, this is absolutely bonkers. Conservatives for a long time have positioned themselves as a party of ‘law and order’; only to now embrace defiance of (since repealed) health and safety measures. They do this as part of their recasting of ‘freedom’ vs ‘fascist’ (read: Liberal/NDP arrangement).

It doesn’t matter that every law, regulation, rule that has been imposed on a temporary measure has met a constitutional test and validated by every court where its been challenged. To the Conservatives, its a culture war that draws in votes for their side. To most rational people, it a party headed for the same crazy-ville that the GOP finds itself stuck in thanks to Trump.

It doesn’t matter that the science behind the various Covid19 vaccines is sound and verified. Its true that they’re not perfect, but the overwhelming use of said vaccines, upholding safe practices is how we navigate our way out of this pandemic. But it doesn’t matter to Conservatives.

They’ve latched on to an explosive, emotionally charged, traumatizing issue for which they’re pretending to be on the side of the ‘little guy’ on.

They’re not. They’ve capitalized on this issue because its so explosive and divisive; pandemic fatigue is real. They do this because it blinds voters to all else that moves…including the machinations of the actual corporate elite who just want to get even wealthier at our expense.

Conservatives are ok with this.

Also, so are the Liberals.

The Liberals are complicit in this culture war, not because some might agree with conservative held views, but that it serves them just as well to distract voters from all else that moves.

Liberals agenda is to permanently paint themselves as the only salvation from conservative social dinosaurs, and its largely been successful. The Federal Liberal Party has governed Canada far more often than the PC or CPC party have; and for longer stretches of time too.

But there is a hunger for substantial change; one that re-formats the system. A redistribution of power (not just wealth). That’s not something that neither the Liberals nor Conservatives are prepared to give up on.

This is because they are both supporters of the neoliberal economic philosophy. A philosophy that has driven a wedge between rich and poor like no other. Their wealthy benefactors in corporate Canada fund parties that maintain the status quo.

If team red and blue can keep folks angry about social issues, then there’s no need to worry about changing the system.

Got it now?

my2bits

Gas tax reform should be on the table

But not for the reasons you might think.

As the growing EV sector cuts into fuel demand and consumption goes, so drops the fuel tax levies assessed by almost every level of government. That’s part of the bragging rights of EV owners – “we don’t have to pay that tax, or buy that fuel”.

Which is substantially true. No gasoline or diesel purchases, no fuel taxes paid. This doesn’t mean that driving an EV is cost free. It isn’t. Purchasing electricity through retail charging stations often draw a sales tax, charging at home increases your hydro bill – even though its far less than the cash output by internal combustion vehicle owners.

But what doesn’t change is the need to maintain critical transportation infrastructure. Roads and highways, traffic management, etc..these are all costly items used by EV and non EV users alike.

If you were to fly a drone over top of a massive traffic jam in any North American city, I doubt you could tell the difference between the vehicles of the two varieties of energy consumption.

This is the problem. EV’s occupy a space on the road no different than your previous gas guzzling SUV and apply wear and tear like all other cars and trucks. With rising uptake of EV’s over ICEV’s – the revenue drop from gas taxes will be irreversible. Even if the need to maintain the upkeep of our roads will not.

EV users aren’t looking for a free ride, even if there may have been some significant tax incentives to make the switch.

Full disclosure, my name is on a list to purchase a new EV when it’s available.

We’re making the switch because we’re doing our part to stem the use of fossil fuels, and in my jurisdiction, BC, the highest uptake for EV’s in Canada is right here. Sure, I’d like to save some money on gasoline purchases, but I need the roads maintained like everyone else.

So its time to reform how we look at this.

Gas taxes were easy. Everyone drove a car that requires gas or diesel, just charge a premium at the pump. Government makes a quick buck and is able to fund roads, etc. With the advent of higher efficiency engines and now EV’s, the revenue stream is under threat.

Instead of charging 14.5 cents a litre for gas taxes, perhaps we should apply a per-vehicle fee because you have a vehicle that is driven on public roads.

EDIT: I might leave 2.5 cents/litre of this tax in place in recognition of high fuel consuming vehicles and out of jurisdiction drivers who wouldn’t be subject to a per-vehicle levy as outlined in this article.

Look at it this way, there are approximately 3.7 million licensed vehicles in BC. The provincial gas tax revenue brings in almost $500 million. A straight across the board replacement would see the gas tax removed and a per-vehicle annual charge of $135 imposed (at the time of re-insuring your car).

EDIT: The $135 annual per-vehicle levy could be scaled up or down depending on the road safety record of the driver whose insurance policy covers the vehicle in question. (safe driver discounts).

I would support a continuation of the carbon tax as its a specific application and it could be further utilized to fund the electrification of our roads and highways.

Alternatively, one could have a mileage tax or per-km levy (which could be difficult to enforce or liberal usage of tolls (all bridges and access points); but that smacks of a discriminatory philosophy against those who live well outside the city, rural areas, or cannot avoid vehicular use for work reasons. Not everyone lives in a condo tower in the west end, Metro-Town with quick access to a sky-train.

I should add that I am not at all married to this idea. If there is some better plan to fund our highways, byways and transit, by all means speak up. But as we shift away from fuel consumption, alternative ways to source this revenue are needed.

My2bits

Opposition attacks on Royal BC Museum rebuild are some of the most repugnant in BC political history.

See update

Opposition attacks against against the proposed rebuild of the Royal BC Museum coming from the BC Liberals and Greens are sad, but predictable. It’s opportunist too. They both attempt to create a wedge issue (for which they are attempting to be on the right side of) by arguing that it’s a binary choice. They cast it as ‘Museum or healthcare’; or, ‘Museum or education’; ‘Museum or climate change’. You get the picture.

The reality is, and the BC Liberals know it – as they have served in government before (Greens too, in a supporting role in the 2017-20 confidence and supply arrangement with the NDP) – that government can do more than one thing at a time. In fact, we expect it; its literally their job.

Government doesn’t run its books like a household – it cannot do that…and it rightly shouldn’t.

As we continue to climb out from the effects of the pandemic, we go from high unemployment to not-enough-workers. Wages are finally moving up. Net effect? More tax revenue from more people working and at higher wages. BC’s economic performance is the best in Canada; better than most jurisdictions in North America.

This allows us to do things. Such as rebuilding a museum that has been asking for help since 2006 – and put on a shelf in favour of other vanity projects like the new Trade and Convention Centre, BC Place roof replacement, Port Mann bridge (and more, and all were grossly over budget).

What burns me is that in this era of recognizing the collective impact of European settlers harm to the First Nations of BC, this museum project allows a more accurate re-telling of what really went on.

This previous year (and more recent headlines) have showcased the thousands of unmarked graves of children who died while in care at the various religious/church operated, government sanctioned residential schools.

Were these children murdered? Neglected? Sick and died from natural causes? I don’t know. Their cause of death is important, but these children deserve to be known by name, their extended families deserve answers, and we must be accountable to this. All of it.

The lost children (the tens of thousands of them), the many complicated matters which need addressing in our delicate walk to full reconciliation, are journeys that need telling in a renewed museum.

Imagine a new museum that finally tells the (living) story of our collective failure in our relations with our first nations – not only to ourselves in BC, but to the world? That would be a good start.

The cost? Government says it will cost $768 million. But, like other large projects, expect it to go over budget. That’s just the reality of things. Especially in todays world where products needed for rebuilding and the highly skilled labour needed are in short supply.

The cost to refurbish? More. Asbestos removal, remediation of the current structure would clearly be a different cost structure than removal of the old, building new.

Over-spending on large projects is nothing new, and hardly controversial anymore. Taxpayers are used to this by now.

The opposition casts this as a thing that should be cancelled; possibly delayed into the future. But given the facts, this will inevitably be required, and there is no delay possible that makes the costs go down any.

I mean, I expect this from the BC Liberals. They cast the museum rebuild as a vanity project. Unfair, especially when the project moves forward in partnership with first nations. And who are the BC Liberals to lecture anyone on vanity projects? Have we forgotten already about ‘quickwins’, ‘om-the-bridge’, Port Mann fiasco, TransLink tinkering?

Oh I know; calls from those saying “that’s in the past, your guys need to worry about now and into the future”. They’re right! Voters are well aware of BC Liberal duplicity and hypocrisy here, but there is little to gain by rehashing it – they lost the election…electoral mileage made from their dismal failings is a credit well cashed in.

But this is about today and the future too. The proposal would only be finished its construction process in 2030 – two whole electoral terms away from now.

Every sign is pointing to a looming recession; a general hangover from the insanity over the pandemic crash – then its rocket-speed ‘recovery’.

Housing prices and general inflation has caused economic problems of their own. By pricing out working people from participating in a housing market (or rental market for that matter), there will be a huge underclass of folks unable to support the small and medium businesses who need free flowing, disposable income from paycheques from workers in order to survive. Folks are just trying to survive.

Government can sit back and do nothing, letting the chips fall where they may…or they can be proactive about it. BC needs a new museum as the old one can’t do it anymore.

The build, the narrative change and the location all serve an economic-health sensitive industry in Victoria well and would bolster the private sector; at a time when they could use it the most. Of course, Victoria isn’t the only place that matters in BC – but as I’ve mentioned, government is capable of handling more than one thing at a time. That’s what they’re supposed to do.

Opposing the museum rebuild is a knee-jerk conservative reaction that I expected from the BC Liberals, I did not expect it from BC’s Green Party. They seemingly have taken on the right wing talking point that funding a new museum is a binary choice ‘at the expense of..’ when it clearly is not.

I’m not going to pretend to be able to sway the opinions of those who hate the NDP and just found a new reason to bolster their hate.

No.

To the overwhelming of rational people in BC however, do not be swayed by the negative nellies on the opposition side. This is a government as you know that isn’t engaging in one-off populist things. Building a new museum – regardless of rhetorical nonsense – is a bold and justified program that will benefit our province in the near term and well into the future.

This is what coherent leadership is supposed to do.

my2bits

Edit: To anyone suggesting that the Royal BC Museum rebuild is a surprise that nobody wanted or talked about, this is incorrect. The earliest I have discovered that the RBCM board had discussed in public the notion of renovations or major structural concerns was in 2005 as part of their 2005/06 annual report.

Here’s the 2008/09 – 2010/11 service report with even more explicit references to the project idea now so controversial.

And this Tom Hawthorne, on twitter, reminding folks of this.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Update:

Well it looks like the museum project is shelved for now. Blowback in the public space was overwhelming as many folks argue that now is not the time for such an endeavor.

That’s too bad. I was in favour, and I believe that the museum rebuild would have been a net positive for the capitol region and BC in general.

But I am no expert and certainly not in control of policy here.

John Horgan, as leader and Premier having to back down from a major initiative like this – is a setback to be sure. Instead of blaming others – he owned it personally.

If I understand one thing about BC voters, they’ll respect and support a political leader who comes across as human as we all are; including accepting mistakes as they come along.

So, with that, I note that from the folks who demonized the NDP and John Horgan for proposing the museum rebuild – now demonize him for cancelling it.

Folks are watching.