This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Tag: Justin Trudeau
This past November 18 the presidents of the United States and Mexico and the prime minister of Canada met in Washington for the first time in five years.
In Canada there was some initial hope for a return to enthusiasm about North American free trade. But this was soon followed by an anxious debate in the mainstream media.
The main concern is a Buy American tax incentive in the Build Back Better bill just passed by the House of Representatives — worth up to $12,500 to a buyer of a new electric vehicle (EV).
In the true north there are fears that this kind of US Buy American incentive could “kneecap Canada’s auto industry,” still concentrated in Ontario.
What, for example, would such a US tax incentive mean for current struggles to secure the future of a new electric automobile industry north of the Great Lakes? (And note Premier Ford has just announced “a plan” for Ontario to build 400,000 electric vehicles by 2030!)
Whatever else, there are many caveats in all this. To start with, as President Biden has noted, the Buy American EV tax incentive in the Build Back Better (BBB) bill is not law yet. It must still survive the US Senate.
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin is also said to have problems here. The Senate could send a version of BBB with the current Buy American EV tax incentive removed back to the House.
As President Biden has noted again : “There’s a lot of complicating factors.” .
The production of a North American automobile today, for example, can involve parts crossing the Canada-US border several times (and then there’s Mexico) — to the point where it’s unclear which country the vehicle was made in.
Similarly, even former President Trump did not seriously implement today’s potent political symbolism of Buy America practically, because this flies in the face of so much that has happened to a globalizing corporate America over the past half century.
There also seems some evidence that the Biden administration has no serious interest in actually trying to do what Donald Trump wisely evaded.
Yet the extent to which even the current White House feels driven to celebrate the symbolism of Buy America is suggested in a November 20 tweet from Vice President Kamala Harris.
It reads : “With the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we’re going to build electric vehicles—and the batteries and parts that go in them—in the United States, instead of relying on other countries … The future will be made in America.” (Note also that, unlike Build Back Better, Bipartisan Infrastructure is already the law of the land!)
The prospect that the Biden administration might somehow find itself unwisely trying to implement the symbolism of Buy America, practically, points to an ultimate observation from Canadian finance minister Chrystia Freeland.
Economic nationalism of this sort could become “the dominant issue” of the Canada-US relationship over the next few years.
Yet again, even if this happens — and the latest evolution of corporate America is turned inside out — that could prove healthy for a more self-reliant Canadian economy, already not quite as dependent on US markets as it was once. (Recent Canadian exports to the United States account for about 74% of all Canada’s goods exports outside the country, down from a high of 84% in 2002.)
If push does come to shove for a new nationalistic era of North American trade, what can Canada do?
From the start Hollywood has regarded Canada as part of the US domestic movie market. Some (central?) Canadian voices would like to see something similar for the automobile industry today.
Alternatively, if even Joe Biden’s democracy does implement a Buy American tax incentive worth up to $12,500, Canada could just copy US policy (as it sometimes has in the past).
To indulge in a little crazy talk, the federal Parliament could legislate a “Buy North American” EV tax incentive (for up to 15,000 US$ say) — in a quest to secure a share of North American automobile manufacturing in the new electric age, roughly equivalent to Canada’s share of the North American automobile consumer market.
The time for quite this kind of crazy talk has not come just yet. Patience with the Biden administration and the US Congress probably remains the best current counsel.
But it is also worth starting to think about the potential longer term prospect that Canada has already entered some more aggressively protectionist era of “North American free trade,” regardless of who is president.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterAlready a subscriber?
Subscriber Login
It could have been a lovely moment.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ventured into hostile territory this week with a bag of money and handed it to Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, a politician in desperate need of good news.
Here ya go Jason — spread this around to the many families in Alberta who are paying more than $1,000 per month for day care. Take the win — affordable quality day care is great for kids and parents, allows more parents to enter the workforce and frees up disposable income to benefit the entire economy.
Kenney could have taken credit for negotiating a great deal, defending the time it took to ink the agreement as necessary to get the terms just right for Alberta’s special mix of non-profit and profit day care services.
But the premier didn’t leave it at that.
The deep divisions and political baggage between Trudeau and Kenney broke out in a thinly veiled arm wrestling match. Even for a day, Kenney wouldn’t set aside his campaign for “a fair deal” for Alberta to concentrate on a great day care plan for Alberta’s families.
He argued the $3.8 billion was just tax money from Albertans coming back to where it belongs.
The final deal isn’t what he wanted, said the premier. He pressed for a no-strings attached handing over of funds, allowing Alberta to administer it as the government pleased. That would match the deal Quebec received, said Kenney.
“At the end of the day, it’s not the only time where we see what appears to be a two-tier federation,” said the premier.
Trudeau replied that unlike Quebec, Alberta doesn’t have a program that already provides day care at even less than the $10 per day price tag that Ottawa is targeting. If it did, it would get the same deal as Quebec, he argued.
“So let’s not create constitutional conventions out of this. It’s about looking at what families have, what families need, and how we get to $10-a-day child care right across the country, and that’s exactly what we did.”
Kenney accepting the federal largesse without pushback would have handed credit to Trudeau. And in Alberta, where there is still a general dislike of federal Liberals, there would be little political advantage in that.
And to be fair, Trudeau was no shrinking violet in the bizarre press conference exchange. Asked by reporters about the cap on oil and gas emissions he announced at the COP 26 conference, the prime minister managed to tick off the premier by mentioning any number of experts and advisors who are being consulted without any nod to the provinces who actually own oil and gas resources.
Kenney fairly lifted out of his shoes to catch that bait.
All of this is political theatre. And Kenney is not playing to national media or even moms and pops in downtown Calgary and Edmonton.
He is playing to the UCP base. His “fair deal” strategy has become paramount: Talk tough to Ottawa; play the underdog card whenever possible; acknowledge western separatist sentiment without espousing actual separatism.
Increasingly the special status of Quebec is the golden standard Kenney argues Alberta deserves.
There’s a whole other subtext to the government’s reluctance to sign on to the child care deal in the first place. The idea of universally funded not-for-profit day care is not central to the UCP worldview.
No wonder Chrystia Freeland stressed the idea that the economic spinoffs from the program outweigh the cost to the public purse in her remarks at the news conference. Convincing conservatives that social programs spin wealth into the economy is a key selling point for increasing tax spending in this area.
Outside of the direct sparring over Alberta’s rights and place in confederation, Trudeau also tapped the premier on the chin with an oblique remark in answer to a reporter’s question about a challenge to federal Conservative leader Erin O’Toole’s leadership.
The prime minister declined to answer directly, saying “the federal Liberals have never been so united.”
The premier, standing next to Trudeau at the podium, dealing with fractious constituency associations and caucus members, could not say the same of his own party.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Canada and the U.S. have long been great friends, allies and trading partners. At the same time, they both think independently and often follow different paths. When it comes to “woke culture,” for instance, only one of these countries has woken up out of its left-wing slumber… and it’s exactly the one you probably guessed it was.
America’s unexpected love affair with progressive politics appears to be a fait accompli.
Virginians elected Republican businessman Glenn Youngkin as its new governor over former Democratic chairman (and governor) Terry McAuliffe. New Jersey Democratic Governor Phil Murphy was nearly toppled by Republican businessman Jack Ciattarelli, while longtime New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney was upset by neophyte Republican Edward Durr, a truck driver who ran his campaign on a shoestring budget of $2,300.
It’s great to see the U.S. rediscovering its political sensibilities. Canada remains deep in the heart of wokeness, however.
What on earth is wrong in the Great White North?
Canada has always historically been more left-leaning than the U.S.. This, in turn, means it’s been more open to embracing progressive ideas like wokeness in spite of interludes from right-leaning governments.
Canada’s King of Wokeness (or Court Jester, if you prefer) is undoubtedly Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. If there’s a progressive cause, he’ll find it. If there’s a new left-wing toy to play with, he’ll be the first in line to get it. If there’s an issue that requires heaps of compassion, emotion and fluffy rhetoric, he’s the politician to do it.
Trudeau took a knee for Black Lives Matter with cameras watching his every move. He talks breathlessly about women’s rights and LGBT rights. He demands that Liberal MPs and candidates must be pro-choice on abortion. He’s wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on environmental pet projects like a crippling national carbon tax that even U.S. President Joe Biden wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole.
The PM has failed on just about every front. The litany of Trudeaupian foolishness ranges from three instances of blackface, spats with (mostly) female MPs and cabinet ministers, foolish jokes and/or praise of totalitarian countries and Communist leaders, and the preposterous use of lines like “peoplekind,” “the budget will balance itself” and his critics “experience things differently.”
It’s definitely hurt him at the polls. Trudeau has only had the support of roughly one-third of Canadian voters in the past two federal elections. Enough for his government to survive, but a clear sign that faith in his leadership has declined.
Yet, many Canadians, both young and old, seemingly want to be part of Trudeau’s politically woke culture – even if he’s at the helm of this voyage.
Why? Canadians tend to be a remarkably forgiving lot, which is why the thrice-blackface PM is still in power. Millennials and first-time voters see Trudeau as being young, hip and more “with it” when it comes to their beliefs and values. Plus, his personal brand of wokeness is probably viewed as being silly, softer and less threatening than the violent mobs and political radicals that destroyed statues and burned buildings in the U.S. and elsewhere.
This largely explains Trudeau’s recent flag flap.
He ordered Canadian flags at most government buildings to be lowered to half-mast after the horrific discovery of more than 1,300 unmarked graves at the abandoned sites of former Native residential schools. The gesture on its own was commendable. Few would have batted an eye had the flags stayed lowered for a week or two to honour their memories. Instead, he kept the flags at half-mast from late May until early November – and refused to return them to full mast until, as he said in September, “it is clear that Indigenous peoples are happy to raise them again.”
Trudeau clearly did this to curry favour with the Indigenous peoples. Much like other matters, he’s been all talk and no action. Improving relations with the Indigenous community, a high priority when he was first elected in 2015, has been a large-scale failure. He even had the audacity to take a surfing trip to Tofino, B.C. on the first-ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which led to a series of apologies for this national embarrassment. If he believed keeping the flag at half-mast would make up for his past indiscretions, he’s got another thing coming.
Other left-leaning parties enjoy competing with our woke PM, too.
The New Democrats decided its first big issue before the return of Parliament on Nov. 22 would be to focus on scrapping the House of Commons’ “archaic” gender-based dress code. That’s right. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh wants to do away with more than 150 years of parliamentary decorum, including male MPs wearing (oh, the horror!) suits and ties to make transgender, non-binary and two-spirit members feel more included.
In a time when politicians of all stripes should be laser focused on COVID-19 and preventing further economic decline, Singh, like Trudeau, prefers to deal with the frilly and silly.
When it comes to shedding wokeness, it’s abundantly clear that Canada needs to follow America’s lead and wake up – now.
Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Is Justin Trudeau Canada’s first New Democratic prime minister?
Former Jean Chretien advisor, and fellow Loonie Politics columnist, Warren Kinsella, seems to think so.
According to him, Justin Trudeau is not only our “first NDP prime minister.” He is also “our first social democrat prime minister.”
Kinsella doesn’t believe that Trudeau has always been a Dipper. But his “transformation” into one was made complete last week after Trudeau played musical chairs with his cabinet and appointed the “radical” climate activist Steven Guilbeault as his new environment minister.
Kinsella, like other business-oriented Liberals, are “apoplectic” over Guilbeault’s promotion and the demotion of cabinet centrists like Marc Garneau and Jim Carr. They think that Trudeau is guilty of “vandalizing the economy” and fear that, left unchecked, he and his team will “slay our energy sector.”
After spewing so much hysteria and hyperbole, Kinsella and the rest of his Blue Liberal pals really need to get a grip. The fears that they have are completely overblown and the comparisons that they’ve made, overstated.
To begin with, lets state the obvious: the Canadian government has not been taken over by radicals. The same group of men and women that sat in cabinet with Trudeau a few months ago are still, by and large, the same team they are today, and none of them are extremists, Guilbeault included. In fact, I think there is a strong case to be made that Guilbeault is far more clear-eyed than most when it comes to tackling climate change. Whether obstructionists in the Liberal Party agree with him or not is another story.
As for Justin Trudeau, let me categorically state that he is not Canada’s first New Democratic prime minister. How could he be when he’s not a social democrat? He never has been. Liberal blood flows through his veins, just as it flowed through the veins of both his father and his mother’s father, James Sinclair, an MP under the Liberal Mackenzie King, and a cabinet minister under another Liberal, Louis St. Laurent.
Of course, blood and familial ties are more anecdotal than anything.
Policy, and one’s vision for society, are what really determines one’s political and ideological identities.
And in this regard again, Trudeau is as Liberal as they come.
On his better days, he is an activist, deficit-spending, diversity-promoting Liberal, but a status-quo Liberal no less.
If anything, the closest Canada has ever come to a New Democrat prime minister is Justin’s dad. Pierre was at least a supporter of the New Democrats, prior to his entry into electoral politics as a Liberal Party candidate. But even he, with his anti-American foreign views and nationalist, economic policies, was still just a left-leaning Liberal. While transformational on constitutional change and language policy, Pierre failed to move the dial substantially on labour, income inequality and countless other socio-economic issues.
Justin, in comparison, is viewed by many on the right as a bold progressive. But he’s really just a more centrist version of the neoliberal Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberals that came before him. That’s why in this year’s federal election, establishment Democrats in the United States like Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama backed him, while social democrats Bernie Sanders and Rashida Tlaib, endorsed Jagmeet Singh and the NDP.
For anyone that still questions Trudeau’s placement on the ideological spectrum, ask yourself the following questions:
a) Would a social democrat criticize the idea of increasing taxes on the very wealthiest in society, as Trudeau did at a campaign stop in La Prairie, Quebec?
b) Similarly, would a social democrat renege on their promise to expand the country’s social safety net and implement a national pharmacare system?
c) Would they have prioritized profits over peace by continuing the sale of arms to human rights abusing regimes in Saudi Arabia and Israel?
d) Would they continue to sign and ratify free trade agreements that cement investor rights while only paying lip service to their environmental and labor commitments?
The answer is of course not. These are the flawed, detrimental policies of Conservatives and establishment Liberals. Not equality-seeking, transformational-minded social democrats.
Now, don’t get me wrong.
I don’t mean to say that Liberals – especially this current crop in Ottawa – are all bad.
The Trudeau government’s acceptance of tens of thousands Syrian refugees was admirable (though not quite as deserving as all the praise it received when compared to the refugee intake of states like Germany), as is the Prime Minister’s promotion of multiculturalism, the LGBTQ+ community, and women’s reproductive rights. Furthermore, Trudeau’s apparent resolve to address the climate crisis and implement a national childcare program, is similarly commendable.
But that alone does not earn him the title or the praise (unintended as it may be from folks like Kinsella) of being named Canada’s first social democratic Prime Minister.
Only once Canadians have an administration that makes the necessary, structural changes to Canada’s economic, social and tax systems to strengthen society and eliminate inequality, will we be able to finally say that social democracy has arrived in Ottawa.
In the meantime, Kinsella and all the other blue, business-friendly Liberals should really stop with their fallacious fearmongering.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
We come not to bury Justin Trudeau, nor to praise him.
But we do wish to defend him. Sort of.
Okay, okay: put down your torches and pitchforks. There’s no need to chase me out of the Sun’s newsroom (yet). But hear me out.
As every reader of this newspaper knows, Remembrance Day is a very important day. It is the day we pay tribute to the sacrifice of men and women who went to war when Canada called.
It is a day that recalls the hundreds of thousands of Canadians killed in wartime – 67,000 in World War One, 45,000 in World War Two, and the 1,000 killed in Korea, Bosnia and Afghanistan. With many, many more grievously wounded on the battlefield.
This Remembrance Day, I attended a small ceremony on Main Street in Picton, Ontario. I had the ringer on my cell phone off, but mid-ceremony, it started buzzing like crazy. Later on, I looked at it.
Partisans on social media – Twitter and Facebook, mostly – were going wild. They were in a spit-flecked fury about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Governor-General Mary Simon.
Here’s what had them upset: Trudeau and Simon arrived late. Trudeau got to Ottawa’s National War memorial just before 11:00 a.m. And Simon actually arrived – and was therefore announced – during the period when there was supposed to be silence.
Given that both live just a few minutes up Sussex Drive – and given that both have armed motorcades to ferry them around – it was easy to understand why people were upset.
The mainstream media noticed, too. The stately Globe and Mail reported that the Prime Minister, the Governor General and the Silver Cross Mother “arrived behind schedule” – if that isn’t a Globe-y way to say “late,” I don’t know what is – and others noticed, too.
Hill reporter Kristy Kirkup tweeted this: “The Remembrance Day ceremony in Ottawa was about 10 minutes behind schedule this morning, according to a timeline provided by the Legion. Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Governor-General Mary Simon arrived behind schedule. We don’t have word as to why.”
The Internet didn’t wait for why. It went bananas.
Said one, echoing many: “Disrespectful! But, what else would you expect from Trudeau.” Another: “Clearly has no respect for Canadians. This PM is an abomination of a leader. An overgrown child riding on his daddy’s coattails. Makes me sick.” And yet another: “That’s disgraceful. There’s no excuse whatsoever!!”
Except, there was.
First off, protocol dictates that the Governor General can’t arrive until the Prime Minister does. That’s how it’s been in Ottawa for a Century, give or take, under Liberal and Conservative governments.
But most importantly: there was security issue, folks. And, given that we have had significant security issues at the War Memorial in the past – most notably, and most tragically, the murder of Corporal Nathan Cirillo almost exactly seven years ago – the police had no choice.
A suspicious package had been found. It looked like a bomb. So, the Explosive Disposal Unit was called in. That unit is made up of RCMP and Ottawa Police Service officers, as well as trained police service dogs, and they do not take their job lightly. They checked out the package. It wasn’t a bomb.
Said the RCMP later: “As a precautionary measure, our officers investigated it and the package was cleared a few minutes after.”
The Remembrance Day ceremony continued, albeit a bit late. But not by a lot.
Anonymous Twitter types – you know, the ones who have been dispensing epidemiological advice without a licence throughout the pandemic – were unconvinced. To them, it was a conspiracy, or a deliberate show of disrespect, or both.
But it wasn’t any of those things. It was a reminder, on our most solemn of days, that we shouldn’t always rush to judgment. Because, sometimes, nobody did anything wrong.
Even if that somebody is Justin Trudeau.
[Kinsella was Special Assistant to Jean Chretien.]
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is talking tough on carbon emissions.
As world leaders gas on in Glasgow, Trudeau is taking an aggressive stance on emissions caps, ending energy industry subsidies and carbon pricing.
Albertans, ever quick to feel victimized and/or affronted, are taking it very personally.
True, oil and gas has been the biggest of economic drivers in the province for decades. But the industry is also the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the country.
While Trudeau struts his country’s renewed environmental commitment on the world stage, Alberta’s premier is sniping from the weeds in Edmonton.
Jason Kenney decided to skip the international marketing opportunity of taking a trip to COP26 to tout all the provincial energy industry has done to reduce emission.
Beleaguered at home, the premier instead is playing to the provincial crowd, dismissing Glasgow as a meaningless “gabfest”.
This week he announced 16 emission-busting industry projects which will get $125 million in funding from the provincial heavy emitters tax fund (and $50 million from the feds, but Kenney’s barely mentioning that.)
The projects may reduce seven million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, crowed Kenney. To put that in some perspective oilsands operations alone account for 70 million tonnes of GHGs annually.
Some of the projects certainly have that cool factor. Canadian Pacific Railway, for instance, is going to retrofit three locomotives to run on hydrogen. Why exactly one of Canada’s richest companies needs government subsidies to try this technology out is just an untidy detail.
Kenney argues that “the path forward” is to incentivize innovation and create jobs rather than punish people with carbon caps and taxes.
Alberta is not just talking, it’s acting, he says.
But the action is pretty slow and the results are sometimes problematic. Alberta is hanging much of its “innovation” cred on technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration, which still assumes oil, gas and petrochemicals are going to continue for many years to come as an economic engine. So called ‘blue hydrogen’ is a byproduct of natural gas.
But Kenney’s not wrong about the need to act. Trudeau has been happy to talk long-range emission reduction targets, but the proof is in results.
Ultimately the question is what kind of action will actually have a meaningful impact.
Many captains of industry admit in boardrooms and at conference podiums that a properly set carbon price is ultimately the stick that will drive capitalism forward. As high emission fuels become too expensive, low-to-no carbon innovation becomes a bottom-line necessity.
The problem is how hard and how fast can a government wield the stick.
Environmentalists argue that no government is hitting the big carbon producers nearly hard enough to save the planet.
Despite Kenney’s opposition to pricing carbon, the money for the province’s latest spate of tech projects actually comes from Alberta’s own homegrown carbon tax on heavy emitters.
But the pilots and startups funded by those carbon tax dollars still have a long way to go to pay off and make a dent.
Kenney tossed out at his giveaway press conference that Alberta’s updated climate policy is coming in the next few weeks. But he also declared, “We will vigorously defend the economic interest of Alberta which includes the right to develop our resources and to do so in a responsible way while also seeking to reduce carbon emissions.”
That’s one seriously mixed message.
The prime minister and the premier are both thrashing on the carbon file. This past week has taxed speech writers and speechifiers to the max.
What the planet needs is less of that speechifying and more effective change. It’s not in either Canada’s or Alberta’s interests to be left behind in a cloud of ineffective rhetoric, half measures and failed targets.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
When Justin Trudeau became Canada’s 23rd prime minister in 2015, he received a significant amount of international praise and media coverage.
The New York Times Magazine paid homage to his late father and declared it was “Trudeau’s Canada, Again.” CNN suggested “Justin Trudeau, ‘the anti-Trump,’ shows Canada’s progressive, diverse face.” At the United Nations, then-Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev said, “I love him. I admire him. He is a wonderful young leader of this planet.” An article about Trudeau in Rolling Stone included this header, “Is he the free world’s best hope?”
These assessments all turned out to be complete nonsense.
Trudeau has been a weak and ineffective leader. He’s lost when it comes to the fine art of public relations and strategic communications. He has a vapid approach to everything from politics to daily life. He understands almost nothing about economics and financial management. He’s turned off more than two-thirds of all Canadian voters in the past two elections, and one truly wonders how much faith and confidence the remaining one-third has in him.
Still, a gushing profile in Vogue’s December 2015 edition, where Trudeau was depicted as the “New Young Face of Canadian Politics” who “celebrates openness and transparency” actually contained a few small kernels of truth. In particular, contributing editor John Power’s analysis in the last two paragraphs was a harbinger of things to come,
During his campaign, Trudeau pledged to invest in schools, health care, and infrastructure, even if that meant running deficits, and—in a profound reversal of Conservative policy—to make Canada a big player in environmental causes, especially climate change. This has already proved a tricky balancing act. Even as he expressed disappointment that President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline (which would have carried oil from the Alberta tar sands), Trudeau was setting up a conference with provincial and territorial leaders to create national emission-reduction standards.
Trudeau insists that the important thing in the modern world is to be optimistic about change, which is a fact of life, and not succumb to negativity. “There’s a sense that maybe we’ve reached the end of progress, that maybe it’s the new normal that the quality of life is going to go down for the next generation. Well, I refuse to accept that,” he says, fixing me with his deep gaze. “And I refuse to allow that to happen.”
This, in a nutshell, explains Trudeau’s leadership. The only thing this PM has left at his disposal is the environment. That’s been his pet project since day one, and he can’t (and won’t) stop talking about it. Since his public image has been badly shattered and properly ridiculed the past six years, his “sunny ways” and eternal optimism now more closely resemble never-ending flights of fantasy.
Trudeau’s statement about carbon pricing at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland emphatically proves this.
“We recognize right now that only about 20 per cent of global emissions are covered by a price on pollution,” he said in a speech. “We should be ambitious and say as of right here today that we want to triple that to 60 per cent of global emissions should be covered by a price on pollution in 2030. What a strong carbon price does, when it’s properly designed, is actually drive those price signals to the private sector, transform the economy and support citizens in encouraging them to make better choices.”
Trudeau didn’t stop there. “We know there are many different approaches that every country is going to have to take to reduce emissions, to decarbonize their economy, to get to net zero (emissions by 2050),” he later said at a news conference. “Carbon pricing is one of the most effective and cheapest ways to get there. It’s an extremely powerful tool that incentivizes businesses and consumers to make smarter choices.”
Trudeau’s assessment of the benefits of carbon pricing are complete fantasy.
Carbon pricing, as you may have guessed, is a less controversial way of suggesting the implementation of a carbon tax. Briefly, it’s not a free market-oriented strategy, but rather a regressive Pigouvian tax which affects overall market outcomes through social costs rather than pure private costs. Governments can then use carbon pricing as a means of regular interference with the ebbs and flows of the free market. It’s nothing more than a subtle shift of taxes from one source to the other.
When have you ever heard, read or experienced a new tax proposal or pricing method that can be, to use Trudeau’s description, “cheap and effective?” Never, because they don’t exist! Additional tax policies like a global price on carbon can only truly benefit one entity, the state. Individuals and businesses face the prospect of steady increases in everything from the gas pumps to income tax rates.
Most world leaders recognize the folly of Trudeau’s position on carbon pricing. U.S. President Joe Biden certainly hasn’t suggested it as part of his plan at COP26. The left-leaning Democrat has expressed an interest in tackling climate change, but he’s not foolish enough to back a new carbon tax scheme that would hurt Americans in their wallets. It would be political suicide for his party and movement, and cause permanent economic damage to his country.
That’s why the international community pays very little attention to Trudeau. In six short years, they’ve learned he has nothing to offer his own country and the world. He may want to be an environmental saviour at COP26, but they realize he’s nothing more than comic relief. Unfortunately, Canadians won’t be able to get him off the domestic and international stage for a while longer.
Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
