Here's a simple question for Prime Minister Trudeau, Minister McKenna, and all other proponents of a nation-wide carbon tax: why?

Most commentary surrounding the Liberal tax plan has been breezily disinterested in offering an answer. Newspaper columns demanding support are generally long on reasons why this particular carbon tax is brilliant as far as carbon taxes go, but rarely devote more than a sentence to what the thing is supposed to, y'know, do, beyond be sensibly administered.

In her official statement, the environment minister claims a national carbon tax, which aspires to decrease carbon emissions by making carbon consumption more costly, will "reduce the pollution that threatens our clean air and oceans." But is this a war that still needs winning?

According to the World Health Organization, Canada sits atop an elite collection of countries whose annual average Air Quality Index measures barely over 20 PM10 (PM10 being the standard unit for large particle matter — ie, pollution — in a nation's air). China's measure, for context, is 88. India's is 102.

Similarly, according to a sweeping 2016 global study led by Yale University, Canada scored 85/100 on the Environmental Performance Index, a comprehensive analysis of a nation's quality of air, water, and various other metrics. That puts us comfortably in the world's upper quadrant, above places like Germany (84), Holland (82), and Japan (81) to say nothing of our friends in China (65) and India (53).

Yet the Minister's pretenses of improving Canada's already squeaky-clean environment are an obvious sideshow to her government's marquee motivation: "addressing climate change." And here once again we must question utility.

Canada's carbon emissions comprise about 2% of the global total. The government brags our emission rates are already on a downward trajectory, and some have observed it's even possible Canada might not be a net generator of carbon emissions at all, given this country's ample abundance of trees — which as we may recall from third grade biology, have a habit of turning CO2 into oxygen. In other words, our entire nation could be nuked by an asteroid tomorrow, and the consequences for global emissions would be, at best, a rounding error.

Carbon tax boosters are tendentiously eager to sling the slur of climate change "denier" upon their critics, but one can find fault with Trudeau's carbon tax logic regardless if your faith on the "settled science" is that of believer, skeptic, or agnostic. By its own metrics, Canada is simply not a consequential player in the global warming fight one way or another, which begs an obvious question of why we should be asked to bear any burden in its name.

If pressed on this front, the carbon tax advocate can only retreat to the justification that Canada should "set a good example." According to this rationale, other nations use Canada as a sort of calibration point when deciding how much garbage to pump into the air, so if Canada imposes harsh limits they'll be inspired to follow suit.

There has never been much evidence the world works this way. The Chinese have been clear their emissions aren't going anywhere but up until "around 2030" and the Indians have been even less precise. Large countries only orient their behavior in comparison to each other, which is why President Obama's long-sought bilateral emissions agreement with President Xi last month, although toothless in many ways, remains a vastly more plausible model for meaningful international outcomes than plucky lil' Canada spontaneously inspiring a sinful world to see the error of its ways.

The Trudeau government is intent to expend a considerable chunk of its political capital on the carbon tax front. So far federalism has been the primary victim. At least seven provincial and territorial premiers have voiced loud displeasure, with Saskatchewan's Brad Wall vowing to take Ottawa to court for intruding upon a realm which is constitutionally his. Trudeau's motive for all this, as is so often the case with his government, seems a classic instance of Canadian ruling class narcissism, in which this small country's world-changing power is greatly inflated in the mind of its political establishment. The common rabble, as usual, will be expected to foot the bill for their leaders' pomposity.

Canada possesses the power and obligation to create a livable environment for its people, and by all accounts, we've done an enviable job. To believe we can do the same for the planet is a preposterous presumption that only survives because we're encouraged to avoid thinking about it.

 

Written by J.J McCullough

"Vote! Vote! Vote!" shrieks the CBC at Canada's youth this election campaign, still haunted by the conservative ghouls' violations of the last election that resulted in the horrifying budget cuts of the Corpse.

The Mother Corp's Rick Mercer is leading the social justice warrior crusade in getting Canada's youth to do a zombie march to voting stations across the country on October 19.

"[O]ne thing we know about non-voters is voting is contagious.  If you take 3 or 4 people and they're non-voters and you put a voter near them, or around them, or someone that talks about voting, the chances of them votingthe non-votersgoes up," expounded Dr. Frankenstein while on Rosemary Barton's Power & Politics.

Mercer went on to explain the contagion's success to a cackling Barton (I'm using some seasonal hyperbole, get over it): "So the idea is if you're a voter you should talk about it and let people know you're voting, so if you go to votenation.ca … it allows you to take a picture and imprint it with "I will vote October 19″.  Then you can share that on social media.  It's already been a tremendous success with 140,000 Canadians have done it," Mercer explained, bursting with pride at his mad genius creation.

Mercer doesn't appear concerned whether the Canadian youth from the ages of 18-24 are informed on any of the issues, just as long as they participate in his slacktivism and turn out to vote this time around (1.8 million youth voters or 60 per cent were no-shows in 2011, this author included).

"Maybe we're shaming them into voting, I don't know.  But as long as they vote, I don't care."

This speaks volumes because Dr. Frankenstein's own network rejected airing two national leaders' debates last month, opting instead to air a documentary about exotic pets and rerun Murdoch Mysteries episodes.  (You don't want your minions thinking too much.)

So what was the real reasoning behind the public broadcaster's defiant refusal to show the debates?  The official reason is that the network wouldn't have had editorial control over the live debate.  Why this would be a problem in a debate (where dialogue is supposed to be unpredictable and out of a host's control) is beyond a sane person rationalizing.  What's obvious to most is the CBC threw a hissy fit, like a child deprived of candy on Halloween, because it lost the right to host the debates this federal election.  But I still think there is also some truth to the CBC's pretentious, official excuse.

The amount of electrocuted and torqued election coverage by the CBC has not gone unnoticed.  In my widely-read post from last week, entitled "The CBC's Insolent Election Bias", I elucidated on the foggy pro-Trudeau and anti-Harper propaganda the CBC has consistently spun this grueling campaign cycle.  Justin Trudeau de facto bribed the CBC with a promise of an extra 150 million dollars annually (despite the CBC failing to recognize its record low viewership and ad revenue) if he becomes PM and the union for many CBC journalists is actively campaigning against the CPC.  Thus it makes sense that the CBC wouldn't want the highly unpredictable and gaffe-prone Trudeau potentially exposed to tough questioning that isn't coming from Trudeau's affectionate Mother Corp.  Better Mother Corp feed its infected zombies filtered and flattering snippets of Trudeau the dilettante.

But we've lost our way in this bizarre freak show.  So back to the CBC's frenzied and zealous crusade to get green, low-information youth out to vote.  On The National, the CBC's Peter Mansbridge hosted a special At Issue panel where the three left wing commentators bemoaned the past low voter turnouts.

Andrew Coyne had a mad solution to top Dr. Frankenstein's: "[W]e would look at mandatory voting.  Obviously we're not going to throw people into jail or anything, but kind of as a nudge … it's just kind of pushes you along and says 'look, there's an election on, everybody is voting, you should vote as well."

No need to try cheap gimmicks in order for the left to get its untapped boon, just make it illegal for low-information voters to sit on their asses come election day.

Mansbridge followed this up by asking Coyne why people shouldn't be allowed to vote on the web.  Never mind the numerous ways online voting could make the process vulnerable to massive voter fraud, Coyne's only quibble against it was that the "solemnity" of the act of voting in person would be lost.  Then Mansbridge pointed out that Coyne online shops, so what's really the difference between the two acts?

It's this kind of blind fervour for greater voter turnout that has resulted in Elections Canada identification requirements being relaxed to what, I would hazard to guess, is a lower standard than many African countries.  Only a couple of pieces of mail with your name and address are now required.

But don't take my word for it. I've been corresponding with an Elections Canada employee whom I've granted anonymity for obvious reasons.  Here's the employee's stark take on the rotten state of our voting institution:

"My personal feelings are that in an attempt to make voting easier the whole institution is easier to fraud.  An example could be if someone or even a group was persistent in wanting to vote numerous times they can appear at every polling station with stolen ID.  With pieces of mail now qualifying as ID it would be simple to gather or steal.  Another example could be if a voter appears with ID that is definitely not their own they simply could make a scene.  Unofficial instructions are to diffuse the situation and allow them to vote.  Avoid any possible media coverage that will put EC in a bad light."

A preview of how ridiculous things have gotten was captured in a recent video stunt by The Rebel Media.  One of the media organization's male journalists, wearing a full-face-covering niqab, arrived at an EC office to vote and trick-or-treat early.  The staff didn't bat an eye at his arrival and presented the niqab-clad man with the options of revealing his face or swearing an oath that it was indeed him (our damn over-politeness biting us in the ass again).  The reporter opted for a pinky promise, and then he was off on his merry way.

However, the real monster mash will take place on October 19.  7,000 Quebecers have made a pledge to show up to vote dressed up in Halloween costumes in protest of the recent niqab developments (perhaps devolution).  I'm sure the CBC will be thrilled when Donald Trump, Ahmed Mohamed, Caitlyn Jenner, Darth Vader, Casper the friendly ghost, and the Scream guy show up to vote.

The little smoke-and-mirrors show that was ominously called The Robocall Scandal pales in comparison to the type of fright we might be in store for when we practice our hallowed democratic tradition this October.

Footnote: Please remember these wise words from Mercer: "So for those of you who are feeling worn down by this campaign and want toto zone out and stay home.  I feel your pain.  I never thought I'd say this, but I would rather drink paint than hear the following is a paid political announcement.  We must remain vigilant.  Remember, this is not their election, it is ours.  They do not get to choose what this election is about.  We do.  Just like we get to choose who runs this country.  That's our joball we have to do is show up and do it."  Vigilant indeed.  Also vigilante.  I don't think the argument that many Canadians lost their lives so that we could vote meant tossing away standing on guard to fraud.  It sickens me how much we've cheapened the vote for the sake of high turnout.

 

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada are pulling out all the stops in the Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner byelection in the hopes of upsetting the Conservatives who won the riding with 68.8 per cent of the ballots cast in last October's federal election.  The seat became vacant after the riding's former representative and Conservative MP Jim Hillyer passed away in March.

Trudeau is visiting Medicine Hat today to help the Liberal candidate Stan Sakamoto campaign in the Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner byelection taking place on October 24.

There is no mention of the visit on Trudeau's official itinerary for October 13 on the government website, but it does show the PM has a busy day as he will be spending the morning and early afternoon with the PM of France Manuel Valls in Ottawa and Montreal, with the final event between the pair beginning at 1:20 p.m.  On the LPC website it shows Trudeau will then be in Medicine Hat for a "meet and greet" with Sakamoto starting at 6:15 p.m.

Despite the daunting task of winning in a Conservative stronghold, the LPC has been relentless in trying to garner enough support to surmount the 50.9 point gap between Hillyer and his Liberal opponent (17.9 per cent) in last election.

Liberal MPs and their "teams" have been spending evenings in the past few weeks calling Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner constituents as shown on Twitter.  On September 28 and October 5 several of Minister of International Trade Chrystia Freeland's staff "made many calls" for Stan Sakamoto.  On September 29 Minister of Canadian Heritage Mélanie Joly, MP Bardish Chagger, her "team", and LPC volunteers made calls to the riding's residences.  On another evening Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef's "Ottawa team" called the riding to support Sakamoto.  MPs Seamus O'Regan, Alaina Lockhart and Arnold Chan have all made calls to the riding as well.

In July, Joly and Canadian Heritage accepted the City of Medicine Hat's application for a $144,000 Canada Arts Presentation Fund grant for a three-year project, which was the third highest Canada Arts Presentation Fund grant given out in Alberta outside of Calgary and Edmonton this year (thus far publicly disclosed at least).  Canadian Heritage also increased funding by over $20,000 to the Alberta News Group's Canada Periodical Fund: Aid to Publishers grants of $281,908 for eight of its publications.  The news corporation owns newspapers in several provinces, including Medicine Hat News and The 40-Mile County Commentator Cypress Courier based within the Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner riding.  The 40-Mile County Commentator had its grant increased from $87,625 last year to $97,977 this year (Medicine Hat News did not receive a grant either year).  It is important to note that Canadian Heritage has an influx of $1.9 billion in additional funding over five years, so increased annual grants from the department are happening across Canada.

Preparing for the byelection this summer, the CBC reported the LPC emailed supporters requesting donations to help the party win in the two byelections of Calgary Heritage ("hours after Stephen Harper announced he was resigning") and Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner.

The meet and greet today in Medicine Hat Trudeau is flying in for should be well attended.  Medicine Hat News reported "about 1,300 Hatters registered online for free tickets, though the current venue holds only about 750 people."

There are four other candidates running in the byelection, with the Conservatives' candidate Glen Motz the clear favourite.

On October 24 Sakamoto, Trudeau, and the LPC will be able to see if their campaign efforts pay off.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon