It’s the 70 megatonne elephant in the room.For his entire tenure in office global warming has been the centrepiece of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s attempts usurp control over resource development using climate policy — and tax power — as a cover for expanding federal jurisdiction well beyond its constitutional authority to regulate environment..But with announcement of his plans to resign on Monday, the question is whether any potential successor would have the wherewithal to kill it altogether.There’s little doubt the carbon tax is Trudeau’s signature policy initiative. Rescinding it is the clearest way for any Liberal contender to distinguish themselves from what is shaping up to be a dubious — and electorally destructive — legacy.For the likes of former finance minister Chrystia Freeland, who never met a tax she didn’t like, or ‘Carbon Tax’ Mark Carney, such a leap of faith is dubious even if it were to blunt Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s primary policy plank.Even if it were to result in short term gain in the polls, it’s not clear if Canadians trust either one of those frontrunners to follow through with it. And it’s at odds with Trudeau’s blatant attempts to undermine the constitutional authority of governments like Alberta’s to control resources.Regardless of the merits of fighting climate change — or not — Trudeau’s aim was never really about reducing emissions; it was a divide-and-conquer strategy of pitting energy producing regions in the West against gullible Eastern voters packaged as a campaign against greedy corporate oil interests.Indeed, it would mean admitting what has been packaged as a ‘rebate’ for ordinary working families was really just a blatant cash grab to begin with.It’s all well and good to reduce emissions, but at what cost? Given the meagre emissions reductions made to date, Canadians are clearly unwilling to bankrupt the country to do it.That’s notwithstanding that climate policy was in shambles to begin with. Since the original Kyoto Accord in 1997, emissions reductions efforts in Canada have been a ramshackle patchwork of regional efforts that could be only be described as half-hearted at best and utterly ineffectual at worst..British Columbia and Quebec implemented their own carbon taxes or cap and trade systems. The Maritimes were given a pass on heating oil while Saskatchewan ultimately refused to stop collecting Ottawa’s centrepiece tax.All along Alberta was half in and half out, eschewing the consumer carbon tax while retaining limits on industry. In fact, it was the first jurisdiction in North America and one of the first in the world to impose a ‘price on carbon’ to parse the words of the prime minister — a point that was lost on the likes of Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and Trudeau himself.That’s also despite good-faith efforts by the likes of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to come up with workable emissions reduction solutions while preserving energy security and affordability for all Canadians, not just Albertans..Not only would Freeland or Carney have to eat a huge helping of crow, it would also be an admission of defeat at the hands premiers Smith and Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe — something even the most pragmatic of Liberals would be loathe to do.The only real contender that could pull that rabbit out of the hat is BC’s Christy Clark, but she would have to repudiate her own government’s decision to retain her province’s tax in 2016. And it would be unlikely to win much support in traditional Liberal strongholds in Ontario or even BC in any event.Not that it makes much difference as long as the US refuses to tax its own emissions and threatens to pull out of the Paris Accord. Even under the Biden administration, Washington’s approach was to massively subsidize industry with trillions of dollars in handouts.It’s a race to the bottom Canada could never hope to win, a point that is becoming increasingly obvious in the face of incoming president Donald Trump’s threats to impose sweeping tariffs on everything this country produces, from food to energy. That holds true in Ontario as much as Alberta.Given that no man — or nation — is an island, Trudeau’s departure is an opportunity for any successor to coordinate climate and manufacturing policies with our largest trading partner with the aim of hammering out a new economic reality that recognizes an integrated North American market while pursuing common fiscal and environmental goals.And yes, it’s been done before. The 1991 acid rain treaty signed by Brian Mulroney and George H. W. Bush is a case in point. As is the original free trade agreement that excluded Mexico..Regardless of who eventually becomes prime minister after March 24, energy and climate are priority issues that cut to the core of national unity and ultimately, the fate of confederation itself.The sooner it’s finally dealt with — either by a Liberal, or more likely by a Conservative prime minister — the better. The country, and climate, can’t wait.
It’s the 70 megatonne elephant in the room.For his entire tenure in office global warming has been the centrepiece of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s attempts usurp control over resource development using climate policy — and tax power — as a cover for expanding federal jurisdiction well beyond its constitutional authority to regulate environment..But with announcement of his plans to resign on Monday, the question is whether any potential successor would have the wherewithal to kill it altogether.There’s little doubt the carbon tax is Trudeau’s signature policy initiative. Rescinding it is the clearest way for any Liberal contender to distinguish themselves from what is shaping up to be a dubious — and electorally destructive — legacy.For the likes of former finance minister Chrystia Freeland, who never met a tax she didn’t like, or ‘Carbon Tax’ Mark Carney, such a leap of faith is dubious even if it were to blunt Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s primary policy plank.Even if it were to result in short term gain in the polls, it’s not clear if Canadians trust either one of those frontrunners to follow through with it. And it’s at odds with Trudeau’s blatant attempts to undermine the constitutional authority of governments like Alberta’s to control resources.Regardless of the merits of fighting climate change — or not — Trudeau’s aim was never really about reducing emissions; it was a divide-and-conquer strategy of pitting energy producing regions in the West against gullible Eastern voters packaged as a campaign against greedy corporate oil interests.Indeed, it would mean admitting what has been packaged as a ‘rebate’ for ordinary working families was really just a blatant cash grab to begin with.It’s all well and good to reduce emissions, but at what cost? Given the meagre emissions reductions made to date, Canadians are clearly unwilling to bankrupt the country to do it.That’s notwithstanding that climate policy was in shambles to begin with. Since the original Kyoto Accord in 1997, emissions reductions efforts in Canada have been a ramshackle patchwork of regional efforts that could be only be described as half-hearted at best and utterly ineffectual at worst..British Columbia and Quebec implemented their own carbon taxes or cap and trade systems. The Maritimes were given a pass on heating oil while Saskatchewan ultimately refused to stop collecting Ottawa’s centrepiece tax.All along Alberta was half in and half out, eschewing the consumer carbon tax while retaining limits on industry. In fact, it was the first jurisdiction in North America and one of the first in the world to impose a ‘price on carbon’ to parse the words of the prime minister — a point that was lost on the likes of Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and Trudeau himself.That’s also despite good-faith efforts by the likes of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to come up with workable emissions reduction solutions while preserving energy security and affordability for all Canadians, not just Albertans..Not only would Freeland or Carney have to eat a huge helping of crow, it would also be an admission of defeat at the hands premiers Smith and Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe — something even the most pragmatic of Liberals would be loathe to do.The only real contender that could pull that rabbit out of the hat is BC’s Christy Clark, but she would have to repudiate her own government’s decision to retain her province’s tax in 2016. And it would be unlikely to win much support in traditional Liberal strongholds in Ontario or even BC in any event.Not that it makes much difference as long as the US refuses to tax its own emissions and threatens to pull out of the Paris Accord. Even under the Biden administration, Washington’s approach was to massively subsidize industry with trillions of dollars in handouts.It’s a race to the bottom Canada could never hope to win, a point that is becoming increasingly obvious in the face of incoming president Donald Trump’s threats to impose sweeping tariffs on everything this country produces, from food to energy. That holds true in Ontario as much as Alberta.Given that no man — or nation — is an island, Trudeau’s departure is an opportunity for any successor to coordinate climate and manufacturing policies with our largest trading partner with the aim of hammering out a new economic reality that recognizes an integrated North American market while pursuing common fiscal and environmental goals.And yes, it’s been done before. The 1991 acid rain treaty signed by Brian Mulroney and George H. W. Bush is a case in point. As is the original free trade agreement that excluded Mexico..Regardless of who eventually becomes prime minister after March 24, energy and climate are priority issues that cut to the core of national unity and ultimately, the fate of confederation itself.The sooner it’s finally dealt with — either by a Liberal, or more likely by a Conservative prime minister — the better. The country, and climate, can’t wait.
