On this edition of Journal, we look at the looming deadlines for mandatory electric car sales in both our province and in the country as a whole.

One headline reads, “Feds on track to eliminate gas cars by 2035” – but are they? That’s only ten years from now – no gas cars being sold?

Besides which, the first deadline is in 2026, only 3 months from now. The federal government says by that time, 20% of car sales must be EVs, while our province is more ambitious in saying it must be 26%. In just 3 months!

So how are these mandates possible? Or is this another of those ambitious promises like the Paris Accords on climate that get signed but never done?

Like most people, I applaud aspirational goals, but I am against writing laws and regulations that are nearly impossible to meet.

Up front, I have to say I have driven an electric car for ten years and I don’t feel biased either for or against EVs. But when it comes to forced mandates on how many electric or plug-in hybrids dealerships must sell, I have some questions.

First of all, 56% of British Columbians oppose forced EV mandates. So how are you going to make this happen?

Then, as Barry Penner, Chair of the Energy Futures Institute, says: It’s like putting the cart before the horse – requiring people to buy electric cars before the infrastructure is in place. We don’t have enough charging stations in the right places to make it work.

Another major consideration is cost. So why would governments stop the rebates when you are wanting more people to buy these cars?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this edition of Journal, we take a close look at British Columbia’s recent budget update – and try not to rant in frustration.

It is bad news: a deficit of $11.6 billion, the largest in our history. And it would have been much worse except that the government chose to include revenues of $2.7 billion in future payments from a settlement with tobacco companies. In other words, even though the province is only receiving just over $900 million this year, they included all 18 years of future payments at once, as if it happened today. One journalist called this a dodge, but at the very least, it is misleading.

It’s hard to remember that Premier John Horgan had a surplus of $6 billion when he left government, even after dealing with COVID costs. Today? A different story.

And the much ballyhooed spending cuts are only $300 million in a budget of $95 billion – not even enough to cover revenue losses.

Talented journalist Rob Shaw, senior political reporter with CHEK-TV, says, “It’s like bailing out a flooded bathtub with a shot glass while the tap is still running full blast.”

So, why should we care, when households are focused on just trying to hold it together paying their own mortgage and expenses?

Well, it’s exactly because households are doing that: trying to keep their finances in order that we should expect our provincial government to do the same.

Joining me to analyze how desperate things are in BC is David Williams, senior policy analyst with the Business Council of BC. David is a scholar who has long studied the direct relationship between public policy and a community’s well-being.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this edition of Journal: another look at the growing tension between aboriginal title and individual property rights.

This issue was brought to the fore by the NDP government’s introduction of the Land Act just before the last election. It was a bit of a bombshell, as it indicated that First Nations would co-manage all of British Columbia’s Crown land – 94% of the province.

Because this was done without proper consultation with all the many affected players, including private property holders and businesses, the resulting uproar forced the government to withdraw the Act.

Then this spring, an agreement between the provincial government and the Haida Nation announced the granting of aboriginal title throughout Haida Gwaii. Once again, the question of private property rights arose. Does aboriginal title override both government and private ownership?

And now, we have the momentous Cowichan court decision granting title of land in Richmond to the Cowichan Tribes. The voices expressing concern over private property are growing even louder.

In her judgement, the judge said, in part, that her decision “may give rise to some uncertainty for the fee simple title holders.” That means private property owners; she goes on to say “it may have consequences for their interest in land.”

To help us sort out the actual legal issues and repercussions is one of Canada’s top legal minds in the field of aboriginal law.

Thomas Isaac joins us to analyse these latest developments and what it means to homeowners.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.