For a guy who likes to invoke George Orwell, Pierre Poilievre doesn’t seem to have paid very close attention to what he actually wrote. His willingness to weaponize obvious misinformation, like a chart he shared on social media suggesting Justin Trudeau was elected in late 2014 (rather than late 2015), is reminiscent of one of the most famous lines from 1984. “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
The idea that Justin Trudeau’s election in late 2015 is somehow responsible for the economic impact of the massive collapse in oil prices that happened a year earlier — and was driven by a decision made in Saudi Arabia — is a pretty obvious example of spurious correlation, and one Conservatives have been trading in for years now. But sharing a chart that falsely indicates Trudeau was elected in late 2014, as Poilievre did, is a whole different level of deceit. The fact that he did it more than once, despite being called out for the obvious falsehood, shows just how little he cares about the truth.
Misrepresentations are nothing new for Poilievre, mind you. If anything, he’s built the massive lead his party enjoys in the polls on the back of his concerted campaign to confuse Canadians about why they’re paying higher prices for things like groceries and energy. But this particular abuse of the truth is so obvious, so flagrant, and so utterly pointless that it’s worth thinking a little longer about what it says.
After all, it’s not like he needs this chart to validate his economic case against the Trudeau government. It’s a fact that our economy has underperformed the United States since Trudeau was actually elected, a reality that is heavily informed by both the American economy’s greater exposure to the tech sector and our own over-reliance on oil and gas. Did Poilievre share the chart because he didn’t care about the obvious falsehood at the heart of it, or because he didn’t care enough to notice it?
Maybe it’s tempting to dismiss this as the typical nonsense you find on social media these days. But Poilievre’s little jab at Trudeau actually raises a much bigger question: Is he really the person we want to represent our interests in dealing with the Trump administration? Even if the next federal election doesn’t happen until October 2025, that would leave three full years — including the inevitable renegotiation of the USMCA agreement in 2026 — with Poilievre and the Conservatives at the helm.
The early signs here aren’t exactly encouraging — not, at least, if you care about things like Canada’s ability to resist the gravitational pull of Trump’s black hole of bullshit. He essentially accepted the premise of Trump’s tariff argument, which is that it was being used to pressure Canada to tighten its border and prevent the flow of drugs and migrants to the United States. Standing in front of a placard saying, “fix the broken border,” Poilievre suggested that “the reality is that [Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau has lost control of the deficit, of immigration and of our border.”
The facts tell a different story here, as they often do with Poilievre’s statements about Trudeau. Last year, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the northern border of the United States accounted for 0.08 per cent of all fentanyl seizures. The previous year, it was even lower at just 0.02 per cent of all fentanyl seizures. And while irregular border crossings from Canada have risen in recent years, the direction of flow could easily switch with the Trump administration’s plans to deport millions of illegal migrants. Then, there’s the issue of guns, which are being smuggled into Canada from America in huge volumes. As Toronto Police Service spokesperson Stephanie Sayer told Postmedia, “Of the crime guns seized this year that have been successfully sourced, 84 per cent came from the United States.”
Canada can, and probably should, dedicate more resources to its side of the border, especially when it comes to intercepting the flow of American guns. It might also want to reverse the cuts that the last Conservative government made to the Canada Border Services Agency in 2012. But we’d do well to remember that Trump’s entire tariff threat is premised on the falsehood that Canada is somehow responsible for its fentanyl problem. Rolling over on this one, as Poilievre seemed almost anxious to do, will only invite other falsehoods about our country — and other threats against it.
This is the real risk of a Poilievre government, one that has multiplied in scale with Trump on his way to the White House. His utter indifference to the truth, and his willingness to weaponize deceit for his own purposes, are traits he clearly shares with Trump. But they will not endear him to the U.S. president, and they will not spare us from his administration’s inevitable wrath. Surrender, after all, doesn’t deter a bully — it encourages him. And every concession to deceit, no matter how small, makes the bigger lies that much easier to get away with.
The best way to protect our cultural and political sovereignty right now is by defending reality, inconvenient as it may seem at times. With Trump in power and our social media overlords increasingly unwilling to do anything to stop the spread of falsehoods and conspiracies on their platforms, we are well and truly on our own here. Our government — indeed, all of our governments — have to step up.
That’s because it’s not just our commodity exports or national GDP that’s at risk in these negotiations. It’s also our integrity — and maybe even existence — as a country and people. As Yale historian Timothy Snyder first noted back in 2016, “to abandon facts is to abandon freedom.” If Poilievre cares as much about freedom as he says, he’ll stop aiding and abetting Trump’s lies about Canada. Better yet, he’ll start telling the truth.
Donald Trump’s bad joke is a good litmus test
Could Canada become America’s 51st state? According to the reports on Justin Trudeau’s impromptu trip to Mar-a-Lago, that was an idea floated by incoming president Donald Trump. In fairness, Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc suggested it was “in no way a serious comment,” and that was backed up by former principal secretary Gerald Butts’s observation that he’d used that line all the time during his first term. “When someone wants you to freak out, don’t,” he said.
That’s good advice. But it’s worth looking around and seeing who in Canada responded to Trump’s suggestion with delight or amusement. They may still be a small minority, but there is a constituency within our country that genuinely believes that we’d be better off as part of the United States — or, perhaps, just enjoys the idea because it makes Liberals squirm. And I’d bet rather heavily that there’s lots of unintentionally ironic overlap between these folks and the ones who threw around words like “treason” and “patriotism” when they were protesting the COVID-19 vaccine.
Either way, let’s be clear: there’s nothing funny about America making jokes about our sovereignty. It’s a reminder of just how precarious our position is, and why we might need to start investing more heavily in our military and other institutions of national self defence (hello, CBC). It’s also an opportunity to figure out who among us believes in the value and vision of Canada, and who would trade it in at the first opportunity.
Erin O’Toole might be the Conservative Prime Minister we needed
If I had access to a time machine, travelling back to 2021 and trying to alter the outcome of the Canadian election wouldn’t be high on my list. But it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that an Erin O’Toole victory back then would be vastly preferable to the seemingly inevitable Pierre Poilievre win in 2025.
As a candidate, O’Toole said and did some objectionable things. Remember that outhouse video? But after leaving political office, O’Toole has become decidedly more sensible, more moderate, and more thoughtful. His recent interview with Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith was just the latest example of his turn towards the light.
We should ask ourselves what it is about partisan politics that makes people the worst possible version of themselves. And we should try to figure out how to invert that incentive structure, if that’s even possible.
I certainly have a few ideas, from implementing electoral reform to tightening up the regulations around campaign financing. It’s a shame that the Liberals didn’t do any of this when they were first elected almost a decade ago. Now, the rest of us are reaping the whirlwind, whether we like it or not.
But I refuse to give up on the idea of politics, or the possibility that it can bring out our best attributes rather than our worst. Maybe Erin O’Toole can help us understand how to do that.
My conversation with the Food Professor
Sylvain Charlebois, the director of Dalhousie University’s agri-food analytics lab, is a familiar face for Canadians who pay attention to the news. The self-described “Food Professor” is a widely cited source for journalists looking to cover news about the production and sale of food in Canada, a subject that’s become particularly important — and controversial — in recent years.
My colleague Marc-Fawcett Atkinson wrote a profile of him recently, one that was not exactly met with enthusiasm by its subject. And when I included a couple of quotes from his recent study of the carbon tax’s impact on food prices, he invited me to interview him. I was more than happy to take him up on that.
The transcript that follows was edited (lightly, I should say) for clarity.
MF: I appreciate your time and the opportunity to dig deeper into this important issue.
Let’s start with your two recent studies on the carbon tax and its impact on food prices in Canada. In the most recent one, you conclude that, “Food price inflation is a worldwide phenomenon that has several, diverse causes. Therefore, attributing food price hikes to a single exogenous source without accounting for other factors may only provide a limited understanding of the issue.”
Why, then, do you think so many people are determined to blame the carbon tax for those food price hikes?
SC: Honestly, I don't know. I think we recognize that there is one party trying to politicize the carbon tax and retail the blame, and Jagmeet Singh has done the same with higher food prices and pointing fingers at grocers. So right now, you're just seeing many parties retailing some really complex issues, and the carbon tax is certainly one of them.
I've never believed that it was actually possible to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the carbon tax is actually pushing prices higher — or lower, or anything. So, going back to [Trevor] Tombe’s working paper, it's like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle with the wrong pieces. When you understand the supply chain or supply chain economics, retail-wise, there are so many factors that can skew any impact of any food policy up the food chain. It's just impossible to correlate.
I’ve always had a hard time, and I’ve actually had a chat with the Conservative caucus, telling them it’s dangerous to say it’s beyond a reasonable doubt that the carbon tax is increasing prices. At the same time, it's as dangerous to say that the carbon tax is not doing anything to food prices as well, which is why the first paper got us to think more about the supply chain and trying to measure the competitiveness of the industry, which is exactly what the Tombe-Winter paper is not doing.
MF: We'll get into the details in a second about some of those issues. I just want to stay in the bigger picture here for a moment….
SC: But you understand my rationale? I've always been uneasy with the idea of correlating both. And frankly, my team, we've looked into it. We’re 11 people, so we did have a lot of meetings about this. It's just impossible to do unless you have firm level data, which we tried to do. We tried to connect with farmers, manufacturers, get to the receipts, get to the actual cost. Not Stats Can — the actual cost. And we failed. We couldn't do it.
MF: Why won't they give that information to you? Is it just competitive issues? They don't want to disclose some of that information?
SC: Competitive issues, yeah. We connected with provinces, we connected with trade groups. We actually committed to only use aggregated data. For six months, I was in pursuit of looking for better data, because Stats Can’s data is not great. But eventually that's what we used, as Tombe did, but that's all we got. It's not great data, especially if you're trying to assess how the policy itself is impacting food affordability at retail.
MF: You write in the second study that “consumers have a limited knowledge of the carbon tax and its impacts on the agri-food industry and are skeptical of the underlying reasons driving price hikes. It is unsurprising that consumers have a fundamental misunderstanding of the objectives and outcomes of the carbon tax.” What, in your view, is the biggest misunderstanding that they have about the objectives and outcomes of the carbon tax?
SC: There are two, I think. One, how is the carbon tax impacting the environment? Are we actually achieving the primary goal of reducing [greenhouse] gas emissions, and is the climate actually improving as a result? Even the Minister of Environment himself admitted that Ottawa is not even attempting to measure that. So that's one thing.
The other thing, of course, is, how do we appreciate how all nodes of the supply chain, including the compounding effect between nodes, which, again, is another blind spot in Tombe’s paper, how that can actually impact the agri-food sectors’s competitiveness.
If you look at the recent CPI report that was released last week, I'm troubled by what's going on right now, because you're clearly seeing food categories that are highly dependent on domestic production becoming inflation drivers. They're the ones pushing inflation higher, like meat and dairy, very domestic. And what's saving us are imported goods, and I'm not sure Canadians want that. I think Canadians want to eat Canadian food. Right now, you're seeing a shifting food landscape, enticing grocers to import food from abroad, and I don't think that's desirable. Now, is the carbon tax a factor in that? We need to know. And right now, we have a government that that just doesn't know — and that is not appreciating how much the carbon tax is making us more reliant on imports.
MF: Okay, let’s dig deeper into the data in the second study. Your data shows a significant increase in wholesale and retail food prices in 2022, and this is noted visually in one of the charts in your study. “April 2022 is also demarcated as the is the [sic] largest step-up that the carbon pricing has taken,” it reads, “rising to $50 CAD per tonne of equivalent carbon dioxide emissions (up from $20 CAD).”
Now, I think it’s worth pointing out that the largest step-up was in 2023, but isn't it possible that there's spurious correlation happening there? That was also the time when you had Russia invading Ukraine, you had oil prices shooting up, you had diesel prices going up, you had wheat prices going up. What's a more likely cause of that spike in food prices in Canada in early 2022: the carbon tax or Russia's invasion?
SC: So, a lot of factors are at play here. We're releasing Canada's Food price support next week, and if you look at our dashboard, there are probably 45 factors pushing prices higher or lower.
To isolate only one factor….like, for example, with Tombe and Winter saying that the carbon tax is a non-factor when it comes to food inflation? That's just completely ridiculous to claim. It's a ridiculous claim. And saying that the carbon tax is the main factor pushing prices is equally as ridiculous as well.
In order, I would say that Ukraine was by far the largest factor, because wheat is 20 per cent of all calories we eat on earth. So obviously, it impacts the entire planet. It's not just the carbon tax in Canada. COVID weakened supply chains, and I think by the time we got to the Ukrainian conflict, which started in February of 2022, that black swan event really made things worse.
But when you understand supply chains, you understand that there's always a lag effect when it comes to food prices, so farmers will be hit, and then processing, and then distribution and retailing, and so it took a while. It took a while — it took eight to 10 months to actually see that impact on consumers eventually. And that storm, that inflation storm, lasted a while.
MF: I think it’s interesting that in our political discourse we really seem to fixate on the carbon tax and its impact in 2022, but the increase on diesel prices was, I think, 2.68 cents per litre year-over-year. From December 2021 until June 2022, meanwhile, diesel prices went up by 60 cents a litre — and that had nothing to do with the carbon tax.
SC: I think what's important to point out is that we needed to understand, and there was no attempt before 2018 for the government to understand. I have no issue with a government implementing a carbon tax, as long as the government knows exactly how food affordability and food security will be impacted as a result of it.
Personally, I’m in favour of a cap and trade system. I said that in Parliament a couple of weeks ago to the Technology Committee. I had an exchange with Ryan Turnbull, the Liberal MP in Whitby, and I basically told him, listen, I have a bias towards cap and trade. I always have, and I always will. I think it's the right way to do it when it comes to the agri-food sector. It brings flexibility, and companies can actually manage their own risks and can have options.
You see Max, I do think that this fantasy around thinking that policy can change the weather is the wrong approach. I think we need to decarbonize the economy and see that as a market opportunity. And I've always believed — and when I’m in front of farmers I say the same thing — we need to decarbonize the market and see it as a competitive advantage. And that's what's missing in the message coming out of Ottawa.
MF: I want to get into that idea of a tax to control the weather, because you said that in a recent tweet. You said, “this talk of a tax to control the weather needs to stop. It's fueling unnecessary climate hysteria.” But then, in your study you said that “there's compelling evidence indicating that carbon taxes are efficacious in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.” So how do you square that circle for me?
SC: So, it's more about focus, essentially. Again, going back to our government's intent, without knowing we were flying in the dark. And to be honest, I think we're still flying into the dark.
Keep in mind, Max, I'm actually an editor of a special issue that is going to come out in January with 11 papers coming from all over the world looking at the carbon tax or carbon pricing impacting food chains. I'm the special editor for that special issue, and I'll be writing an editorial based on these 11 papers. So it's coming out in January. And I must say, there's, there's, there's a lot of misunderstanding around this policy, and I believe a lot of Canadians are just coming to the table very late in the game.
Guys like you, Tombe, Winter, [Andrew] Leach, [Kent] Fellows have been at this for a long time and without being challenged, really, because you thought this was the right way to go. You're probably still convinced it's the right way to go, but I don't think we've actually had a sound debate again in terms of what's the best way forward when it comes to decarbonizing the economy. And I do condemn people who actually see climate change as a fantasy. It is not. It exists. It's real. It's the number one threat to agriculture. It will remain the number one threat to agriculture. So not doing anything, as the Conservatives are suggesting, is even worse than what's going on right now.
MF: I would welcome that debate. I think that sounds fantastic. I'm frankly, increasingly agnostic on the carbon tax versus other policy measures as a way of decarbonizing. Mark Jaccard at SFU was touting regulations as a better solution for climate change for years, and it turns out he was probably right. But do you not worry that your work is being weaponized by Conservatives who don't want to have that conversation? They don't want to talk about climate policy. They just want to attack the carbon tax.
SC: My work has been weaponized for years. Now it's the carbon tax. Before it was dairy, and before that it was something else. I've been doing this for 25 years, Max. Politics are politics. You either stay home and be quiet or you play the game. And as you play the game, you do stand the risk of seeing some of your work being weaponized.
It goes both ways, by the way. Tombe’s work is also weaponized as well, and he plays a very public role. I think we’ve both accepted that. It's just part of what we think is important for us to do.
MF: You appeared before Canada’s agriculture committee earlier this year, and you said “Every year, when we write Canada's Food Price Report, climate change is the number one factor. It's the wild card. For a few years, it was COVID and climate change. Climate change is really a big factor….”
SC: This year it’s climate change and Trump.
MF: Yeah, and you said, “It doesn't mean that it will drive prices higher; it makes things more unpredictable.” Later, you said that “demonizing inflation, to me, is a waste of time. We need to focus more on price volatility.”
Do you feel like we're focusing enough on climate change's role in food prices, in our agribusiness sector, and in its long term competitiveness right now?
SC: No. No, I don’t think we do.
Like I said, I'm not a climate change expert. You know more about climate change than I do. I'm just a person trying to figure things out. I've been asked many times to look into this, and I've accepted the challenge and formed a team around to support the lab for that challenge, and I feel we've done the best we can given the data that we have. Can we do better? Of course, we can. We're not done, but I'm not going to pursue any more work without better data.
MF: Now, on social media you’ve accused Professors Tombe and Winter of publishing “propaganda,” and pointed to the contracts they received from the federal government. But your own recent studies were funded by Canadians for Affordable Energy, which is an anti-carbon tax advocacy group. Isn't that sort of the same thing? Doesn't taking money from an anti-carbon tax group colour your work as well?
SC: Have you talked to them about this study?
MF: I haven't talked to them about it. I'm talking to you about it.
SC: They're not happy. I was dealing with one person. I won't name that person, but I was reporting to that person, and I told him, listen, this we’re academics. We get data, we analyze the data, we write reports, we get it published. You may not like what you see.
He did not like what he saw because we didn't say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the carbon tax is pushing food prices higher at all. If you read the papers, they're not super controversial.
MF: No, they're very careful, very measured.
SC: And he was very mad at that.
At this point, Charlebois had to take another call. He suggested we could talk again in the future — and I’ll be happy to take him on that, as well.