Adam Pankratz: David Eby's CleanBC initiative a greater hit to economy than Trump's tariffs
Article content
Open any book on politics and you will find that, in Canada, the NDP stands for the New Democratic Party. In British Columbia under David Eby, the acronym needs to be updated to — Not Delivering Prosperity.
Article content
Since Eby and his government took over in 2022, British Columbia has been an economic basket case. The deficit projection for 2025 was revised upwards in March to $10.9 billion — a record — which followed hot on the heels of the 2024 deficit of $9.1 billion — also a record until 2025 stole the deficit crown. The result in April was a downgrade to BC's credit rating from AA to A+. By any measure, the outlook is grim, as total debt for the province is predicted to soar by 70 per cent over the next three years.
Article content
Article content
The ruling NDP and Premier David Eby have been quick to blame economic woes on Donald Trump and his tariff policies. While tariffs are no doubt hurting B.C. — as they are all of Canada — this tactic is already tired. In truth, the damage appears to be mostly self-inflicted, caused by poor budgeting and economic policy driven by ideology rather than actual economics.
Article content
Article content
At the B.C. Chamber of Commerce AGM on June 4th, Ken Peacock, the former Chief Economist at the Business Council of B.C., presented analysis indicating the NDP's CleanBC initiative has actually been a far greater hit to the province's sputtering economy than any tariffs. From 2019-2024 it cost B.C. $29.3 billion in lost GDP and is projected to cost the province a further $109.7 billion between now and 2029. That's David Eby's economic leadership in action: ideology torpedoing economic prosperity for hard working British Columbians.
Article content
Eby and the NDP will of course point to the fact that they have passed Bill 14 and 15. Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, is ostensibly a bill to speed up major infrastructure project development, particularly in the resource industry. Eby and the NDP say the bills are 'critically important' to respond to a 'rapidly evolving situation' (read Trump) rather than acknowledge their need as a result of the NDP's actions in creating a provincial economic dud. Bill 15 gives cabinet sweeping powers to override existing regulations for projects in the provincial interest and fast-track them to permitting. It has been met with serious pushback from B.C. Municipalities and from First Nations who claim it ignores their voices and dismisses their rights.
Article content
Article content
While any business which has tried to work in the province's economically critical resource sector may applaud the notion of a government finding ways to stop B.C.'s quagmire of delays and regulatory hell, the bill fails to address the real problem and merely hands unmerited power to a small group of NDP ideologues. This is always the Eby NDP way: power consolidation for decision making.
Article content
Article content
The problem should be obvious to any free-market supporter. Bill 15 does not reignite B.C.'s economy by streamlining regulation for private enterprise; it merely allows cabinet to pick and choose which projects it will decide to ram through any further regulatory oversight. This is ripe for abuse and political interference. It is a pay-to-play system where randomness and arbitrary decisions based on cabinet whims, without clear process, will become the norm. Eby's NDP claim the bill brings investment clarity, in fact, it does anything but.
Article content
The vague backroom modus operandi of the NDP is, however, consistent in one way. They echo the closed-door decision-making attempts and history of the NDP when deciding how the province's crown land will be used; something essential for investment and resource development. This important process has been shrouded in secrecy on multiple occasions. The latest announcement in this regard covers all of Northwestern B.C. including the mineral-rich Golden Triangle. As a result, nearly a third of British Columbia is now subject to a one year pause on new mining-tenure registrations. This is the exact of opposite of what attracts investment to the province and will send the critical dollars B.C. needs to friendlier investment regions.
Article content
David Eby's NDP has bankrupted the province and has no plan back for the simple reason that they cannot trust the free market to do its work. They are trapped in an ideologically-driven mindset which does not permit British Columbians to make full use of their own province. This arbitrary and regressive policy must change.
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
43 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
What asset mix minimizes your chances of a loss?
No one likes to lose money. But retirees are especially averse to investment losses, since they no longer have a continuing stream of employment earnings. Take Martha, a 65-year-old who expects to live at least until 94 thanks to good genes and a healthy diet. Apart from Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security pensions, all her retirement income will have to be generated from her savings. She would like to avoid a capital loss, but how? Martha considers three asset mixes: 40/60, meaning 40 per cent in stocks (split evenly between U.S. and Canadian ones), and 60 per cent in long-term government bonds; 20/80; and 0/100, meaning everything in bonds. To improve her chances, she keeps her investment fees low, at 0.5 per cent, by investing in exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Martha's expected retirement period is 29 years, which is convenient for our analysis since there have been exactly three 29-year periods since 1938 (the first year with good statistics for all asset classes). There is a fair chance the future will resemble at least one of those three periods – we just don't know which one. As the chart shows, Martha would have lost money in at least four years out of 29 and as many as eight years. The most benign period investment-wise turned out to be 1996-2024, even though it included the dot-com bubble (which burst in 2000), 9/11 and the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Regardless of the period, we find that Martha could have minimized the risk of a loss by investing at least some assets in stocks. This may come as a surprise since stocks are traditionally considered riskier than bonds. The 20/80 asset mix proved to be the safest, and while the 40/60 mix was a little riskier, it did result in a higher average return. Coming in dead last was the strategy of putting 100 per cent in long-term bonds. If Martha was intent on avoiding a loss under any circumstances, she could have put all her money in a short-term bond fund, a money market fund or GICs. That strategy, however, would have resulted in a lower long-term return than any of the three asset mixes analyzed above. The moral here? Even the most risk-averse retiree needs to accept a little investment risk. Frederick Vettese is former chief actuary of Morneau Shepell and author of the PERC retirement calculator (
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Security rules not followed when awarding contracts to company behind controversial ArriveCan app, report says
A person holds a smartphone set to the opening screen of the ArriveCan app in a photo illustration made in Toronto, Wednesday, June 29, 2022. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Giordano Ciampini OTTAWA — Canada's auditor general says federal organizations failed to follow procurement and security rules when awarding contracts to the company behind the controversial ArriveCan app. The report on GCStrategies is one of several audits tabled in the House of Commons today. It says the company was awarded 106 contracts by 31 federal organizations between 2015 and 2024. The maximum value of those contracts was more than $90 million but only $65 million was paid out. Auditor general Karen Hogan looked at a sample set of contracts to see whether they fell in line with federal policy and whether the government got value for taxpayers' money. Her findings say many contracts did not follow procurement rules and organizations often provided little evidence to show the work had actually been done. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 10, 2025. Catherine Morrison, The Canadian Press
Global News
an hour ago
- Global News
Report suggests renewable cleanup rules making Alberta less competitive for investment
A report says new cleanup rules for renewable energy sites are hurting the competitiveness of Alberta's industry. Business Renewables Centre-Canada analyzed the reclamation security requirements for renewables in 27 jurisdictions and found Alberta's are now the most costly. Under a code of practice for solar and wind projects published last week, the Alberta government says operators must provide an estimate for the cost of dismantling turbines and panels, removing underground concrete infrastructure, hauling waste away, replanting vegetation and other items. A 30-per-cent security is required upfront, rising to 60 per cent after 15 years to ensure there is enough money for proper cleanup at the sites' end of life. BRC-Canada says Alberta's upfront security requirement is unusually high and the rules don't take into account the salvage value of the concrete and metals that could be sold to recoup cleanup expenses. Story continues below advertisement The Alberta government issued the new rules in February 2024, just as a seven-month moratorium on new renewable project approvals expired, but it had yet to lay out the details around how they'd be implemented. 5:14 Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces end of ban on renewable energy projects Jorden Dye, BRC-Canada's director, said many renewable projects are being built by multinational companies that can move their capital around easily. 'And it'll just be really disappointing if we see Alberta lose out and lose our ground as the biggest developer of renewable energy in the last few years in Canada because we've continued to place onerous rules on the industry,' he said. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy In addition to the reclamation security requirements, the province has placed buffer zones around wind turbines so as not to impede 'pristine viewpoints' and is taking an 'agriculture first' approach to deciding what can be built on farmland. The province is also working through consultations on the structure of its energy market as well as transmission regulations. Story continues below advertisement 'If you take one by itself, it's OK — we might be able to live with it, or we can work around it,' said Dye. 'It's kind of getting to the totality of the decisions that's really driving some of the concerns.' The BRC-Canada study noted some jurisdictions — such Illinois and Tennessee — require a 100-per-cent reclamation security, but only 10 per cent of that must be paid upfront. 'Renewable energy projects are really sensitive to the upfront capital cost,' Dye said. 'Having that as an operating annual cost is a lot different to whether a project will go forward than if it's an upfront cost.' 2:05 Alberta unveils strict new rules for renewable energy Three-quarters of the jurisdictions the group compared accounted for the salvage value of materials once projects are dismantled. While that amount may not reflect the real-world value of the metal and concrete decades into the future, it does go a long way toward offsetting the reclamation costs, Dye said. Story continues below advertisement Dye said wind and solar projects generally have a lifespan of 20 to 50 years, but components are often refurbished along the way. And when they're done operating, there is decades' worth of real-world data to make pursuing another development easier. While an oil or gas well will eventually become depleted, 'the sun and the wind will still be there in those exact spots,' Dye said. The cost of cleaning up old oil and gas wells has been a major issue in the oil and gas sector. The Alberta Energy Regulator estimates that as of June 2024, there were $36 billion in environmental liabilities. In announcing the renewables policy in February 2024, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said the province was looking for a different and better way to approach solar and wind cleanup than what had been done for oil and gas. 'It is critical that we do not repeat errors of the past, and that we have reclamation rules and costs accounted for at the beginning of any development,' she said. The reclamation bond or security can be paid to the Alberta government, or be negotiated between the renewable developer and a landowner. Janetta McKenzie, oil and gas program director at the Pembina Institute think-tank, said the rules for wind and solar are fundamentally different than 'generous and flexible' ones for oil and gas. Story continues below advertisement In that sector, companies are required to pay about one per cent of cleanup costs in upfront securities, with no firm timelines, she said. The industry-funded Orphan Well Association looks after closure costs when an energy company has gone bankrupt or otherwise cannot meet its obligations. But that organization 'is also buttressed by some interest-free loans from the provincial and federal government and is pretty persistently underfunded,' McKenzie said. 'This is a province that wants to unleash its energy sector, but there is an energy sector that's waiting for a stable regulatory environment and then one that is being given a lot of options to not reclaim and not clean up itself in a timely manner.' 1:45 Alberta to introduce renewable energy recycling fee
