As the federal election approaches, the Liberal government鈥檚 record has become increasingly more difficult to defend.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau鈥檚 promise in the last election that he would run only 鈥榤odest鈥� deficits has burgeoned into a national debt increase that is bigger per person than that racked up by any government in Canadian history, outside of a major war or a recession.
Trudeau promised to reduce taxes for 鈥榤iddle-class鈥� families, but a Fraser Institute analysis calculated that 80 per cent of middle-class families are paying taxes at least $840 higher per year.
Then there鈥檚 Indigenous reconciliation. After a bungled inquiry into missing and murdered women left Indigenous families angry and disappointed, what was left of the government鈥檚 reconciliation agenda was then demolished by their sanctimonious attacks on and the firing of Jody Wilson-Raybould, a widely respected and Indigenous former attorney general.
Trudeau鈥檚 attempts to build greater trade with China have tanked, damaged by na茂ve attempts to rope Beijing鈥檚 autocratic leadership into joining his 鈥減rogressive鈥� trade agenda. And that was before China unleashed trade (and other) retaliations in revenge for Canada鈥檚 arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou. Meanwhile, the new North American trade deal still isn鈥檛 signed, and high U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum and forest products continue to hurt Canadian industry.
So how does a government that can鈥檛 campaign on its record go about gaining re-election?
By building its campaign around an issue where voters can see them as heroes fighting to save the planet against uncaring opponents. That issue is climate change and their weapon to fight it is carbon taxation.
Winning re-election with this strategy requires convincing voters there鈥檚 a 鈥榗limate emergency.鈥� And so on April 1, the day the federal carbon tax kicked in on provinces unwilling to impose a tax that met the Liberals鈥� requirements, the federal Department of Environment and Climate Change released a supposedly independent report claiming 鈥淐anada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.鈥�
From now until the election, Canadians will hear Trudeau and his cabinet members blame every weather event 鈥� wet, dry, cold or warm 鈥� on climate change. And the urgent need for a carbon tax to stop it.
When the prime minister recently visited flood-ravaged areas in Quebec, he called the floods 鈥渢he new reality of climate change.鈥� But experts attribute the recent flooding to one of the longest, coldest, highest-snowfall winters on record. Isn鈥檛 climate change supposed to be about global warming?
Convincing Canadians of the need for carbon taxation is just the first element of the Liberals鈥� re-election strategy. Their most powerful 鈥� and cynical 鈥� tactic is their promise to give most taxpayers a bigger carbon-tax refund than what they will supposedly pay in carbon taxes. How is that possible?
The answer is that individuals will get the refunds, while businesses bear the full cost. In other words, tax the job creators and use that money to bribe the voters.
The principal gladiators leading the Liberal carbon-tax forces are Trudeau and his eco-passionate environment minister, Catherine McKenna. The defenders opposing them in the carbon-tax coliseum are the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick, along with federal Conservative leader Andrew Scheer.
Scheer will have most of the spears trained on him. McKenna recently accused him of 鈥渉aving no climate plan.鈥� But unlike the Liberals, Scheer鈥檚 climate plan needs to be based on the fundamental fact that Canadians could all move to Mars tomorrow and it would have virtually zero impact on global climate change. Here鈥檚 why.
Many Canadians have been led to believe (with the help of Liberal misinformation) that oil is a sunset industry. But the consensus of authoritative forecasts sees growth in developing countries pushing world oil demand from the current 100 million barrels a day to at least 110 million by 2030.
If world oil demand is going up anyway, why should Canada cede the market for our most important export to Russia, Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia 鈥� countries that don鈥檛 care about the environment and have horrendous human rights records?
At the same time, hundreds of coal-fired power plants are under construction in China, India and 麻豆传媒AVeast Asia. (Vietnam, one of the smallest countries in that region, has new coal plants under construction that could end up producing more carbon dioxide emissions than all of Canada.)
As good little scout Canada struggles mightily to meet its commitments under the Paris climate accord, the vast majority of nations on the planet have already given up on the pact. Last year, global greenhouse gas emissions grew by an estimated 2.7 per cent. So if Canada鈥檚 economy had simply ceased to exist, our 1.6 per cent of global emissions would have been replaced in just seven months.
These are irrefutable facts. So the decision by the Liberals to base their election campaign on the assertion that reducing our country鈥檚 relatively tiny emissions will help fight climate change can only be explained in one of two ways.
First, Trudeau and his team are breathtakingly unaware of facts anyone can learn through an afternoon of googling.
Second, they choose to mislead Canadians in a desperate bid for re-election. That would mean they choose to base their election campaign on a known lie.
So what should Canada actually do about climate change?
The clearest answer was recently offered by a man in hip waders, who was filling sandbags to help with the flooding in Central Canada. When he was asked by a reporter what should be done to prevent the floods, he said this: 鈥淲ell, there鈥檚 all this talk about climate change, but I don鈥檛 see what Canada can do about that when China and other countries keep burning more. If that鈥檚 going to cause more floods, we鈥檇 better figure out how we can be ready for them.鈥�
That鈥檚 the most common-sense analysis I鈥檝e heard. Instead of throwing away billions of dollars subsidizing costly and impractical 鈥榞reen power鈥� and handing taxpayer money to buyers of electric cars, let鈥檚 redirect those billions to risk mitigation and homeowner compensation.
In the case of floods, dikes and dams need to be improved where practical. Homeowners in unprotected flood plains should also be offered the full replacement cost to move, as Alberta did after the floods of 2013. After all, it鈥檚 flawed government zoning that put people in the flood plain and created the problem; it鈥檚 only fair to homeowners that government make things right.
Forest-fire risk can be mitigated by underbrush removal, regulatory setback distances and fire-resistant building materials.
A Conservative climate-change mitigation strategy based on the common-sense words of that flood worker would make Canadians much better prepared for climate change.
And it has the added benefit of actually telling Canadians the truth about the climate-change challenge. That would be Scheer鈥檚 most important difference from Justin Trudeau.
Gwyn Morgan is a retired Canadian business leader who has been a director of five global corporations, including founding CEO of Encana Corp.
www.troymedia.com
