To save Canada, we need a stronger federal government
For too long, Canada's federal government has been making strategic retreats from wielding its power. If we're going to stand up to Trumpism, that has to change — and fast. Photo by Jason Hafso on Unsplash
It’s not clear yet whether the 30-day delay announced by Donald Trump on his promised tariffs on Canada is a stay of economic execution or merely its postponement. The pause will give Canadian leaders time to negotiate what Trump has called a “final economic deal,” and they should use the time to figure out how best to flatter, cajole, and otherwise convince Trump that Canada is not, in fact, a threat. They should also use it to prepare for the new reality in which America very much is a threat to us.
That almost certainly means more military and defence spending, along with the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers and the deepening of economic relationships with Europe, China, and the rest of the world. It definitely means a renewed interest in building oil and gas export pipelines on the part of people who have always been interested in it, although it remains to be seen whether they can actually convince anyone who wasn’t already in their camp.
Most of all, though, it means a strong federal government, one that’s capable of successfully advancing national initiatives. Unfortunately, we don’t have one of those right now. That’s not just because parliament is prorogued or the Liberals are trailing badly in the polls. It’s because for years — decades, really — our prime ministers have been ceding ground and authority to the provinces. Yes, the current government has bucked that trend when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, and invited all manner of pushback from provinces like Alberta and Quebec in the process. But on almost every other issue, from healthcare funding to minority rights and the constitution, it’s been one “strategic” retreat after another.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding clause, for example, has been invoked eight times by provincial governments in the last five years. The reason why you might not know this is because the federal government has barely made a peep about it, especially when the government doing it is in Quebec. Last year, Saskatchewan’s government instructed its provincial energy utility not to collect the carbon tax on natural gas — and, for all intents and purposes, break the law. Here again, the federal government was effectively mute.
The Harper government wasn’t any better. It sold off the Canadian Wheat Board, gutted the long-form census and other key data collection exercises at Statistics Canada, and cut the GST by two points in order to reduce the federal government’s available fiscal capacity. His overarching vision of so-called “open federalism” eschewed the idea of national priorities and standards, especially in areas of social policymaking.
The last truly strong federal government might be the one led by Jean Chretien in 2000 — the same one that had the courage and clarity to keep us out of America’s misadventure in Iraq. If Canada is going to resist the gravitational pull of Trumpism, a force that will exist long after its namesake is gone, we won’t do it as a loose coalition of regional interests. We will have to invest our federal government, regardless of who’s leading it, with the sort of power and authority that is capable of pursuing national objectives — and overriding provincial objections.
That could mean creating a national energy program for the 21st century, one that better connects our provincial electricity grids, supports the development of resources like uranium and critical minerals, and builds out massive amounts of low-cost clean electricity. That could mean major new investments in our military resilience to make us better able to address both the threats posed by potentially hostile activity in the Arctic and growing risks of wildfires and other climate-driven disasters. And it almost certainly means tax increases — perhaps restoring the GST to seven per cent, for starters — that help pay for these priorities.
It won’t be easy. It might not even be possible. The issue of interprovincial trade barriers offers an object lesson here. As Internal Trade Minister Anita Anand said recently, clearing these away “could lower prices by up to 15 per cent, boost productivity by up to seven per cent and add up to $200 billion to the domestic economy." Low-hanging fruit, right?
The federal government actually tried to pick that fruit in 2017 when it and every province and territory signed the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. That deal created a binding dispute resolution mechanism that could, in theory, eliminate much of the regulatory misalignment and lack of national standardization that constitute most of our internal trade barriers. Unfortunately, those provinces also negotiated 245 different exemptions, a few of which make sense (language laws, for example) but most merely protect existing provincial fiefdoms: controlling who can own grazing land or who can harvest wild rice, for example. If Ottawa can’t break through this sort of resistance, how can it hope to achieve more pressing (and challenging) national objectives?
Then again, that was before Trump delivered the biggest collective wakeup call in our history. Thirty days isn’t nearly enough time to change the balance of power between the federal government and the provinces, much less advance the kind of legislation that entails. But it is enough time to get the conversation started, and it’s one that should define our next federal election.
The carbon tax that Conservatives have been attacking for years suddenly looks like the thinnest of all possible gruels, not least because both Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland have said they’ll scrap the consumer portion of it. Instead, we all have to consider far more important questions: what does it really mean to put Canada first, and who is best able to do it?
February 5th 2025
Comments
Ford's and other Premiers happy over Trump's win didn't help Canada one bit. How are they actually surprised by his behaviour knowing his past behaviours which is the scary question about them. That they actually didn't realize that he would betray them too is astounding? Harper and pp's love for the guy and encouraging their supporters to love the guy have put Canada at great risk. Or did Mulroney, Harper and pp and their 'inside behind the scenes supporters' know that this was going to happen? That 'real' Canadians are taking this to heart and coming together to give their response is wonderful but is it enough.
Because it's a corollary to the Dunning-Kruger effect, aka the Lake Woebegone effect: the town where all the kids are above average.
If you can answer that one, you'll also know how it is that spousal abusers who go on to trash their ex's to new girlfriends, who think that they, of course, are not "like her," and so he'll treat them better.
Harper, Mulroney and PP are all part of the international right-wing agenda. They know what they're doing: it's by design, not accident.
It's probably not enough. What would work would be if all the PP followers suddenly woke up and understood he's not their friend. Any more than Doug Ford was in any way at all "for the little guy," as he claimed to be in his campaigns. But they believe his social media channels, his own Ontario news bureau, and right-wing radio. The gullibility is staggering.
The worst hurt are always the poor, who are stuck with the cheapest choices because they can't afford anything else.
Absolutely correct
Here is the background
https://evonomics.com/how-to-disguise-racism-and-oligarchy-use-the-lang…
And although it says racism it really discusses right control, thru Koch and Harper and Preston Manning who would sell us out in a second. Harper's writings wish Canada to be a republic
"America’s misadventure in Iraq"? You mean the illegal American invasion of Iraq.
Fawcett: "The last truly strong federal government might be the one led by Jean Chretien in 2000 — the same one that had the courage and clarity to keep us out of America’s misadventure in Iraq."
Another revisionist myth cherished by the Liberal Party faithful.
Ostensibly bowing to public opposition against Bush's illegal invasion of against Iraq following 9/11 — another war propped up by lies about WMD — Chretien nimbly upped Canada's commitment in support of America’s misadventure in Afghanistan, instead. Which allowed the U.S. to focus on its misadventure in Iraq starting in 2003.
Smoke and mirrors.
"Canada and the Iraq War" (Wikipedia)
"Neither the Pentagon nor the office of the US secretary of defence had pressured Canada for military support; with US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld making it clear to McCallum that the Americans were not seeking military support from Canada, and preferred if the Canadian Armed Forces focused on their deployment in Afghanistan. Pressure for Canada to participate in the coalition primarily originated from the White House, which 'sought the Canadian flag and the political cover it granted an invasion.'
"… Though no declaration of war was issued, the Governor General-in-Council did order the mobilization of a number of Canadian Forces personnel to serve actively in Iraq. On 31 March 2003, it was reported in Maclean's that in the previous month Canadian officers, aboard three frigates and a destroyer, had been placed in command of the multinational naval group Task Force 151, which patrolled the Persian Gulf region. A further 30 Canadians worked at the US Central Command in Qatar, and 150 troops were on exchange with US and British forces in proximity to combat. North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) stationed Canadian Air Force pilots also flew combat missions with the US Air Force E-3 Sentry, and exchange officers fought with US units. Canadian pilots also flew Boeing C-17s into Iraq to "season" the flight crews. In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict.
"… Because of this Canadian involvement in Iraq, the Ministers of the Crown at the time were criticised by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as hypocritical, and demands were made for the return of these Canadian Forces personnel. The Prime Minister stated that the Canadian military was not involved in direct combat, while still fulfilling its commitment to NORAD.
"However, it was claimed by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang in The Unexpected War that people from Canadian ministries were in Washington, D.C., openly vaunting Canada's participation in Iraq; as Stein and Lang put it: "in an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateralism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq– three ships and 100 exchange officers– exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition."
In that war, several hostages were taken in Iraq -- soldiers who weren't officially even there. All but three were released within a few weeks, one was rescued by US special forces, one died and another has been missing since 2004 and presumed dead.
Harper, at the time leader of the opposition, was furious at Canada's not being a full participant. Seems even then he advocated illegal activities.
Well, IMO, PPoilievre is not the answer. He addressed the business community in B.C. and could hardly lift his head. Like Trump, when it comes to serious matters, these men both have to read what is put in front of them . Can’t think on their feet , unless it is slurs and rhetoric .
We need experience, and honesty .. not what Premier Eby called baloney’
And vilifying the media and our Public Services only creates more insecurity / instability..
This election could be the most important we may ever vote in.
He probably figures, "Hey, it worked for Trump!"
Agreed, and it's truly baffling how anyone could find someone as basically unlikable as Poilievre appealing. He's got dead eyes that only light up when he's slagging the Liberals or Trudeau, who doesn't actually smile, he smirks. And he talks like the frustrated hockey player he apparently is, in a monotone, which is also nasal. I can't listen to him.
The problem is that the politicians of all stripes and at all levels of government are the ones least qualified to devise a Canada that is equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.
1) Short term thinking
2) fiefdoms that want the power but not the responsibilities.
3) Amending formula
4) FPTP electoral system 33% of the electorate can gain 100% power, it is even worst when you consider that 50%-60% vote
One solution could be a Citizen's Assembly or two or three
So, in other words you are qualified. I wouldn't trust some of today's 'citizens' as far as I could throw them. Have you witnessed their behaviours at school board meetings, throwing gravel at our PM and on and on and on. pp encouraged and supported these people and that alone should tell us all that he and his group are absolutely 'not' the answer.
You must be happy with the word Smith and the big 'T' use ---- CZAR. Talk about going backwards.
Agree. I find it odd PPoilievre wants Parliament recalled. Seems he has spent months undermining the work’ of Parliament right up until Christmas. Allowing almost nothing to get done..
We all know the Poilievre so-called concern in recalling Parliament, is to replace our elected Government with his own inexperienced leadership..
Pretending it is something else is being disingenuous..
He wants it recalled so he can push/force an election call. He doesn't want to go up against a new leader, especially one who dropped interest rates when he was the head of the Bank of Canada, and who speaks Rational Human, coming across to "the masses" much better than Freeland.
Please don't diss Citizen's Assemblies. When designed fairly they can be one of most democratic consultation models ever practiced.
The Citizen's Assembly on electoral reform worked very well in BC. 100 citizens chosen by lottery and purposely made up to be as diverse as BC's population were mandated to tour the province to consult with citizens and to conduct research and receive verbal and written input from ordinary citizens, diverse political parties and experts alike. They toured for six months and looked at many forms of voting systems in the world and also the current FPTP system.
Unsurprisingly, they chose proportionality over majoritarian systems and settled on the Single Transferable Vote. This particular voting system has been both praised and criticized (seems to have been working successfully in New Zealand), but the majority of critics still rejected FPTP in favour of some kind of proportional representation, like Mixed Member.
The then BC premier stayed out of the process altogether as promised -- shockingly! -- but he did have too much influence at the very end by setting the pass mark at a 60% supermajority. When the referendum results came in he was visibly shaken when it actually exceeded 58%. It was obviously a narrow escape to him.
Clearly, the people of BC wanted a proportional system after decades of majority governments winning seats in a disproportional relationship with the popular vote. Rural votes are often twice as valuable as urban votes, which helps explain the ridiculous imbalance conservatives in farming regions and distant small towns have over urban votes in ridings with far more people.
In my opinion a referendum on electoral reform should be won on a simple majority of 50% plus one vote. Why? Because 50% is often ten or more points higher than a lot of historic "majorities" that obtained less than 40% of the popular vote, yet went on and bring great change to law, the economy and society usually slanted unfairly in one direction and causing significant damage that inevitably is undone by the next majority.
Another electoral refom process was launched by the BC NDP, but there was no CA. The process was managed by then Attorney General (now Premier) David Eby. It was rushed, perfunctory and biased. Obviously they were only going through the motions as part of a minority government agreement with the Greens. The results were predictable -- low turn out and only 30- something % in favour.
When citizens have a genuine say in something as important as electoral reform, and the consultation and referendum process is fair and free of political gerrymandering and barriers, the results can be very encouraging indeed.
Single Transferable Vote is just a different name for Ranked Ballots, both of them fancy-dress versions of first past the post.
The federal Committee set to study the matter (headed, IIRC by Elizabeth May) recommended Mixed Proportional Representation, and not the Ranked Ballot, which Trudeau wanted as it would tend to give Liberals not only wins, but majorities. So Trudea not only rejected the findings, and washed his hands of electoral change entirely, telling the press it was a mistake. Then he lied and claimed the Committee had made no recommendation, and the self-styled "feminist" sent out a female rookie MP (Karina Gould) as his ventriloquist doll to do his dirty work for him. She claims she wasn't "thrown under the bus" ... but then again, she has named as a strength her ability to bear what to me can only be called abuse. Not what I'd look for in a PM.
According to fairvote.ca:
"BC NDP and BC Green Party Accord includes a committee that will look at proportional representation!
The committee will hear from experts and the public and produce a report on preferred methods of proportional representation for BC in the summer of 2025. The Accord between the BC NDP and the BC Greens will be up for renewal annually. Every year, the parties will negotiate “renewed and new policy initiatives”.
Here in Ontario, I voted against the form of MPR entertained, as it represented less democracy, not more, with the parties being able to select the "proportionalizing" vote MPs from a slate they chose, not the electorate, and the proportionalized slate of members would "float" rather than dealing with constituents: we'd wind up with fewer seats representing constituents, with the "floaters" voting presumably along party lines and having no constituency duties. Pretty much a no-brainer: bigger ridings means a lower representative-to-constituent ration, ergo less representation.
I'd also like to see a return to several all-candidate meetings held in ridings, to make it easier for people to attend, featuring the old system with open mics, where minority candidates could put ideas into attendees heads, instead of what has happened in the last few elections: only some of the candidates attending a by-invitation panel, most of whom misrepresent their past-term activities, and answer only previewed questions chosen by the organizers -- seemingly in concert with the party apparatus of the incumbent. That kind leads to a ho-hum attitude, and doesn't inspire anyone who wasn't already going to vote, to do so.
I consider the latter to be a huge waste of my time, as I read the pamphlets put in my mailbox, and speak with the candidates who come to my door. With the latter, neither the points I'd wish were raised or the questions I'd have asked are included. I generally leave the microphone lineup if/when my questions are answered. The former format meetings were generally not only informative/instructive, but lively, hugely entertaining, and sometimes downright inspirational. There's a big plus to candidates being on the spot to provide answers to questions they'd probably rather not be asked.
As far as simple majority goes, how is that not a first-past-the-post proposition in and of itself? Changing the way votes are presented and counted amounts in most people's mind to a Very Big Change, maybe even a constitutional issue, which would require an even larger super-majority, wouldn't it?
When people clearly want something, they turn out at the polls in droves. When the six municipalities of Toronto were forced into amalgamation, they all voted 90% or more against amalgamation ... with an 80% plus turnout in each municipality. That's a supermajority of over 72%, by my reckoning.
During preparations for the anti-amalgamation rally in Canada's Last Borough, with a sidewalk sign saying, "Honk against amalgamation" it sounded like a small-town wedding procession following the car with the "JUST MARRIED" sign on the back, all afternoon and into the evening. At rush hour when it turned into a constant din I knew how the vote would go. I wouldn't be surprised if the honking drive-by encouraged other vehicle occupants to go out and vote, too.
So no, 58% of a 30% turnout (17 1/2 % of the electorate) doesn't tell me people really wanted it, at all. Then again, people might generally be more inclined to vote against a change than for a change, I don't know.
One wonders how effective the Citizens' Committee was at gathering feedback.
I would have thought the internet has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that people don't handle "choices" well; simpler is better, and I think you'd agree that politics has never been more binary than now. Good vs. evil. Ultimately you have to choose ONE.
I think the internet has also shown that people really aren't meant to interact so much either.
I agree. The well-known sayings, "have you met people" and "hell is other people" both resonate like never before.
"It definitely means a renewed interest in building oil and gas export pipelines on the part of people who have always been interested in it, although it remains to be seen whether they can actually convince anyone who wasn’t already in their camp."
Those "people" include Max Fawcett.
More than once, our valiant Observer columnist and enthusiastic O&G industry cheerleader has voiced his support for pipelines and other major O&G infrastructure (CCS) projects that perpetuate fossil fuels:
"Donald Trump might just make Canada great again" (National Observer, January 24, 2025)
"Trump’s return is also a reminder of the need to chart our own economic course, one that’s far more independent from the United States than it’s ever been. Yes, that probably includes new energy infrastructure that reduces our dependence on America and increases our access to world markets. It also means finding ways to displace American energy imports with Canadian-made options — in other words, a National Energy Program for the 21st century.
"… Northern Gateway is dead, but what about a different project — built by Ottawa and owned entirely by impacted Indigenous communities — that helped ship Canada’s oil to global markets? What about a similar project heading east to feed refineries in Quebec and the Maritimes? And what if one of the conditions attached to those projects was Alberta’s acceptance of an emissions cap to ensure the sort of climate leadership the oil and gas industry keeps promising it will deliver one day?"
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/01/24/opinion/donald-trump-make-c…
"Opposition to military spending and NATIONAL ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE PIPELINES are articles of faith among their supporters, and their interest in things like trade policy and economic growth are fleeting, at best."
"Jagmeet Singh's NDP is in deep trouble" (National Observer, January 29, 2025)
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/01/29/opinion/jagmeet-singh-ndp-d…
No need to be coy, Max.
"It definitely means a renewed interest in building oil and gas export pipelines on the part of people who have always been interested in it, although it remains to be seen whether they can actually convince anyone who wasn’t already in their camp."
That could also be interpreted as, "Oil proponents want more pipelines, everybody else doesn't."
Knowing Fawcett's reticence to completely eliminate the notion of expanding the oil industry it's easy to see how one can view that statement as "We need to build more pipes." Note how carefully Fawcett worded it to lean either way. Sneaky.
What puzzles me is that Fawcett also cites in other pieces the ongoing data indicating the rapid rise of renewables and the possibility petroleum demand will peak by 2030 or thereabout. Can't have it both ways, Max.
No more pipelines. Period.
Criminey! Has Mr. Fawcett never heard of Scope 3 emissions (that can't be reduced except by not being used)?
Mr. Fawcett might be surprised that a majority of Canadians disagree with him!
Caps including calculations of Scope 3, with ongoing cap reductions would fly, perhaps ... but they'd have to be steep reductions at this point.
Maybe he should read the National Observer, as opposed to simply writing for it!
Fawcett: "We will have to invest our federal government, regardless of who’s leading it, with the sort of power and authority that is capable of pursuing national objectives — and overriding provincial objections. … And it almost certainly means tax increases — perhaps restoring the GST to seven per cent, for starters — that help pay for these priorities."
Or tax the O&G industry's excess profits.
Or simply make fossil-fuel producers and consumers pay the full environmental, climate, and health costs. I.e., price carbon properly.
As it is, Canada is about to axe consumer carbon pricing, while our weak industrial carbon pricing system (OBPS) allows big industrial emitters in the oilsands to pay pennies on the dollar.
Max ALSO WRITES: "That could mean creating a national energy program for the 21st century, one that better connects our provincial electricity grids, supports the development of resources like uranium and critical minerals, and builds out massive amounts of low-cost clean electricity."
As usual, you completely ignore both the salient political context AND the main point of the article so as to indulge pure disputatiousness.
About that AND that context.....you have indicated a political preference for the NDP in the next election (btw, as proof of how deeply right-wing big tech's social media has embedded their wholly despicable right-wing narrative, BESIDES Trump shockingly winning power again, AND the stubbornly oblivious attachment to "Trudeau derangement syndrome," this avidity around an election that hasn't even been called yet is truly a Canadian first.) But nonetheless, Jagmeet Singh has proudly stated his noble intent to take down this
supposedly horrendous government at the earliest opportunity, again despite the considerable amount of political context, but also in lockstep with those right wing algorithms that Poilievre has been so shamelessly stoking for the last TWO YEARS.
None of this is at all impressive or helpful.
"indulge pure disputatiousness"
The Observer's lead columnist's longstanding support for new pipelines and CCS projects that perpetuate the fossil fuel industry is not a matter of dispute. It's a fact.
A fact that provides essential context for Fawcett's statement:
"It definitely means a renewed interest in building oil and gas export pipelines on the part of people who have always been interested in it, although it remains to be seen whether they can actually convince anyone who wasn’t already in their camp."
Readers should understand that the author belongs to that group of "people" interested in building oil and gas export pipelines, however obliquely he puts it.
Building out grids, developing uranium (good idea only if you support nuclear energy) and critical minerals, and low-cost clean electricity matter little for the climate if we keep expanding fossil fuel production, consumption, and emissions.
Contradictory climate policy designed to fail.
My general preference for the federal NDP over the two corporatist petro-parties should not be read as a statement of confidence in the current NDP leadership and his election tactics.
A federal election is imminent, Singh or no Singh.
Singh is well past his Best Before date.
I'm talking about YOUR "disputatiousness" as you well know, which is looking for an argument for the sake of it. Not helpful, as I said, nor is piling on Max Fawcett in the relentless, nasty style reminiscent of conservatives, which is why I've wondered who YOU plan to vote for.
He writes thorough, thoughtful articles that always get the most discussion going.
But I'd say he's also entirely aware of that political context I keep bringing up, something you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. That context unfortunately still includes bloody oil and gas, AND our current electoral system btw.
Reminds me of Avi Lewis who I hear is running in a Liberal stronghold in Vancouver next election. Although I loved his Leap Manifesto years ago, still do, that NDP "holier than thou" purist mantra is REALLY starting to get old now, and is sounding more like a cult, and IS a classic example of the perfect being the enemy of the good, and the narcissism of small differences.
And splitting the vote right now is not only irresponsible, it's actually as stupid/insane as the conservatives. What's WITH progressives? Look at Ontario right now. As it stands the two women vying for "leadership" are closer to fitting the admittedly awful stereotype of "dumb blondes," though they're clearly NOT, because Ford is going to win AGAIN. Which is how he's done it all ALONG.
"piling on Max Fawcett"
The Observer claims to be Canada's "most trusted voice in climate journalism".
Yet it platforms a lead columnist who supports new oilsands export pipelines and white elephant carbon capture projects. No energy transition is possible as long as we are building out both fossil fuels and renewables. Max Fawcett's "both … and" vision is a plan to fail on climate.
Not a minor detail. Readers need to understand the fundamental flaw in Fawcett's scheme.
At election time, count on The Observer to publish a barrage of op-eds from academics, corporate environmentalists, etc., in support of the allegedly "climate-sincere" Liberals.
When Canada's climate leaders and opinion leaders endorse Liberal climate plans based on fossil-fuel expansion, they enable climate disaster and imperil future generations.
Any energy economist, pundit, or "pragmatic environmentalist" who endorses Corporate Canada's climate plan and enables Big Oil's agenda is corrupt. Media outlets committed to climate journalism should stop giving them airtime and column space.
Can you imagine the National Post putting Seth Klein, Andrew Nikiforuk, or Geoff Dembicki on its editorial page?
Can you imagine a health magazine hiring a tobacco lobbyist as lead columnist? Can you imagine Project Ploughshares platforming a war criminal as lead columnist?
No, I can't either.
As previously observed, when it comes to fossil-fuel expansion, the Liberals and Conservatives are on the same page.
Both parties plan to fail on climate. Neither is progressive on climate.
Both parties primarily serve Corporate Canada, elevating business interests over the public good. Unlike the federal NDP.
So kindly spare us your sloganeering about "the narcissism of small differences". The differences between a strong, bold, and progressive federal NDP and Green Party and the two corporatist status quo parties are not small or insignificant.
When it comes to fossil-fuel expansion and Canada's energy future, the two corporatist parties largely agree.
The petro-progressive federal Liberals are not in a tug-of-war with Conservatives over climate. They are dance partners. The NDP and Liberals promote fossil-fuel expansion and take science-based policy off the table. This allows the "conservatives" to shift even further right, doubling down on denial and fossil fuel intransigence. But it's Trudeau and Notley who shift the Overton window. It's Trudeau and Notley who shut down the space for effective science-based climate policy.
It's the NDP and Liberals who ignore the science and undermine the climate movement.
Party supporters, more partisan than patriots, falsely view the Libs and Cons as diametrical opposites. Good and evil. False duality. In reality, Trudeau and Poilievre are the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of climate disaster. Both parties serve Corporate Canada. Only the Liberals are far more effective.
Your endless gaslighting to the contrary.
Geoff Dembicki: "How Trudeau's Broken Promises Fuel the Growth of Canada's Right" (The Tyee)
"The Liberal party plays on voters' desire for far-reaching transformation while guaranteeing the endurance of the status quo. The Liberals effectively act as a kind of shock absorber of discontent and anger towards the elite…
"So on climate, Trudeau was presented as this kind of river-paddling environmental Adonis. He promised that fossil fuel projects wouldn't go ahead without the permission of communities. But the Liberals create these public spectacles of their bold progressiveness while they quietly assure the corporate elite that their interests will be safeguarded. So at the same time Trudeau was going around the country and convincing people that he was this great climate hope, the Liberal party had for years been assuring big oil & gas interests that there would not be any fundamental change to the status quo.
"As early as 2013, Trudeau was telling the Calgary Petroleum Club that he differed with Harper not so much about the necessity of exporting huge amounts of tarsands internationally, but because he didn't think Harper's approach — which stoked divisions and an incredible amount of resistance that turned Canada into a climate pariah — was the most effective marketing approach.
"The Liberal climate plan essentially is a reworking of the business plan of Big Oil and the broader corporate lobby. …The plan is to support a carbon tax and to effectively make it a cover for expanded tarsands production and pipelines. That was a plan hatched by the Business Council of Canada back in 2006, 2007. For 20 years oil companies had resisted any kind of regulation or any kind of carbon tax and fought it seriously. But they started to realize that it would be a kind of concession that they would have to make in order to assure stability and their bottom line not being harmed. The climate bargain that Trudeau went on to strike with Alberta of a carbon tax plus expanded tarsands production was precisely the deal that Big Oil had wanted."
"Perfect is the enemy of the good."
Who says plans to fail on climate are good?
Using your logic, failure is acceptable as long as we can find someone who fails even worse.
I got 47% on my math test. I advised my father not to cancel my allowance, because little Johnny got 23%. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
My homebuilder took my money and left me with peeling paint, leaky plumbing, drafty doors, cupboards that won't open, windows that won't close, a shifting foundation, and god knows what else. But that's OK. I could have hired a contractor who is even worse.
The kids' busdriver left half the kids at the wrong stop last week. But, hey, you know, half the kids made it home. A blind busdriver might have lost them all.
Obvious fallacy.
I agree with the thrust if this article.
All the chatter about interprovincial trade barriers and "national interest" infrastructure is mainly from conservatives using nationalism and patriotism to expand their interests in petroleum. Well, with 80% of the companies operating in carboniferous Alberta being foreign owned, that narrative seems a little thin.
The only polico today who is talking seriously about building infrastructure for clean energy is Mark Carney, though he does need to provide more detail on how he would treat the petroleum industry. We are left to guess whether he will it leave alone and unsubsidized, or will he fall into the public subsudy trap around CCUS?
However, the majority of Carney's narrative is filled with references to the trillions moving worldwide into investments in renewables. One can surmise he sees renewables and industry built around them as Canada's central ticket out of carbon and into prosperity. He also refers to maintaining a strong set of social programs.
Msny people only see him as a corpirate banker, as did I a few months back. But now that he is in focus as a genuine contender for the PMO, I've found him to be as nuch a civil servant who worked to regulate private banks and deal directly with crisis management. He akways reiterates the fact money in renewables has exceeded money in fossil fuels, and that the carbon content in imported commoditues will be taxed in important places like the EU.
In these terms, no one else in parliament or in the LPC leadership race is talking about it. I just want to see national clean electricity corridors, decarbonized industry, a focus away from the USA basket of economic eggs, more generous grants for big renewable projects and local residential heat pumps and so forth. If Carney loses the leadership race, then I don't see much hope in this time of climate abd Trumpuan economic crises.
Alex Botta wrote: "He always reiterates the fact money in renewables has exceeded money in fossil fuels…"
Not a fact.
We are getting there, but not quite there yet.
Investment in "clean" technologies exceeds investment in fossil fuels, but "clean" technologies is a broad category. It includes renewables, electric vehicles, nuclear power, grids, storage, low-emissions fuels, efficiency improvements and heat pumps. Not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Spending on renewables per se has yet to eclipse upstream investment in oil, gas, and coal, which exceeds $US 1 trillion.
"Investment in clean energy this year is set to be twice the amount going to fossil fuels" (IEA, 06 June 2024)
https://www.iea.org/news/investment-in-clean-energy-this-year-is-set-to…
The investment money preceeds catital construction. Right now world investments in renewables is roughly doubke investments in fossil fuels. The build out follows, of course with a lag time, but it's happening.
If someone graphed the investments renewables will be on a steep incline, whereas petroleum investments globally has flattened. The IEA and Bloomberg have the data. Carney has managed big investment firms (which balances out his role as a public servant regulating said firms and banks) and he constantly refers to the trillions vs. billions, renewables vs. petro ratio in money targeting opportunities for growth and profitability.
Yep, that's corporate money talk, which turns a lot of progressives off. But that behemouth sector is swinging big time to solar and wind because they are deemed good long term investment strategies with a return. That cannot be a bad thing.
The IEA and others have also estimated that the build out of renewables following their initial funding will force demand for fossil fuels to peak by about 2030. Danielle Smith, predictably, calls that propaganda, as if the IEA is run by a bunch of lefties. As if. She is not prepared for the inevitable.
I'm on my phone and unable to post links at present.
Overall emissions are destined to decrease in all scenarios involving investing in and building renewables. Individual projects that focus on cleaning up petroleum production at home but ignore scope three emissions abroad are setting themselves up for failure as export countries go solar at an increasing pace.
This is where economics takes over decarbonization where politics fails.
AB wrote: "Right now world investments in renewables is roughly double investments in fossil fuels."
Source?
The IEA's World Energy Investment 2024 report indicates otherwise.
Global investment in clean energy and fossil fuels, 2015-2024 (first graph)
Fossil fuels: $US 1,116 B (2024)
Renewable power: $US 771 B (2024)
IEA: World Energy Investment 2024 report: Overview and key findings
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2024/overview-and-k…
Even if the claim were true, it would signify only that renewables are growing faster than fossil fuels, but that fossil fuels are still growing. Which implies an increase in GHG emissions for decades, unless the global financial sector decides to strand its fossil fuel assets.
As long as global energy demand exceeds the growth of renewables supply, the difference will be made up by fossil fuels and nuclear. As long as fossil fuel consumption grows, emissions will continue to rise.
To slow climate change, renewables must supplant fossil fuels, not merely supplement them.
IEA: "Upstream oil and gas investment is expected to increase by 7% in 2024 to reach USD 570 billion, following a 9% rise in 2023. This is being led by Middle East and Asian NOCs, which have increased their investments in oil and gas by over 50% since 2017, and which account for almost the entire rise in spending for 2023-2024.
"… A significant wave of new investment is expected in LNG in the coming years as new liquefaction plants are built, primarily in the United States and Qatar.
"… Investment in coal has been rising steadily in recent years, and more than 50 GW of unabated coal-fired power generation was approved in 2023, the most since 2015, and almost all of this was in China."
IEA: World Energy Investment 2024 report: Overview and key findings
Even if fossil fuel use peaks this decade, the IEA and others project a decades-long plateau, not a precipitous drop-off. In which case, GHG emissions will plateau, not decline.
In the IEA's 2023 Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) scenario, global fossil-fuel production and demand plateau after 2030. No steep decline.
"… Although oil demand for petrochemicals, aviation and shipping continues to increase through to 2050 in the STEPS, this is not enough to offset reductions in demand from road transport, as well as in the power and buildings sectors. As a result, oil demand peaks before 2030. The decline from the peak however is a slow one in the STEPS all the way through to 2050."
"Total energy investment worldwide is expected to exceed $3 trillion in 2024 for the first time, with some $2 trillion set to go toward clean technologies – including renewables, electric vehicles, nuclear power, grids, storage, low-emissions fuels, efficiency improvements and heat pumps – according to the latest edition of the IEA’s annual World Energy Investment report. The remainder, slightly over $1 trillion, is going to coal, gas and oil. In 2023, combined investment in renewable power and grids overtook the amount spent on fossil fuels for the first time." IEA, June 2024
2:1 renewables vs. fossil fuels. And one year earlier it was 1:1. Renewables are on a tear. This dovetails perfectly with what Mark Carney has been saying for months. He deals with investors all the time in his day job and probably has access to private data on this topic.
https://www.iea.org/news/investment-in-clean-energy-this-year-is-set-to…
Fossil fuels: $US 1,116 B (2024)
Renewable power: $US 771 B (2024)
The ratio is 1.45:1 in favor of fossil fuels.
As previously noted, renewables is a subset, not a synonym, of clean technologies.
I also noted the flaw in the comparison between clean technologies, a broad category, and fossil fuels. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
Nuclear power may or may not be "clean", but it is at best an adjunct to renewables, and at worst a rival.
If you are going to include EVs in the clean technology category, you should include ICE cars in the fossil fuel category.
If you are going to include heat pumps in the clean technology category, you should include gas furnaces in the fossil fuel category.
Electrical grids are agnostic when it comes to power generation, accommodating coal- and gas-powered power plants as well as renewables.
"IEA: "Upstream oil and gas investment is expected to increase by 7% in 2024 ... following a 9% rise in 2023."
Kind of analogous to falling inflation and growth of government pensions: any amount of inflation amounts to ever more expensive groceries, while pensions almost cease to increase once inflation begins to fall.
The percent increase in fossil fuel production drops (like inflation), but the total emissions continue to rise, like the cost of groceries. Unfortunately, the climate, like my pension cheques, cannot feel slower growth: only the fact of ever-increasing total emissions counts.
While I agree we need a less wimpish federal government that will stand up to the provinces' constant jurisdictional whining, I'm more than disappointed with Max jumping on the pipeline bandwagon that's emerged with Trump's trade war, when we should be doubling down on renewables. Seems strange conversion for a CNO columnist. And increasing the regressive GST? Surely there are more progressive options.
It takes years to build pipelines. Trump will likely be out of office by then. Trade with the EU, our next best economic partner, will result in the carbon content of Canadian exports to the EU being tariffed. The EU is also steadily moving into renewables. Canada's other export markets are discovering the advantages of solar and wind too.
Max has failed to practuce due diligence on that issue.
Wish all governments would stop the bickering !!!