Honesty on all sides would be appreciated by this humble voter. Conservatives on provincial and federal scenes aren’t putting forward climate plans, so are being fundamentally dishonest with Canadians: they welcome voters to conclude that climate change is a hoax, or not so bad, or somebody else’s problem but not yours. Liberals are like Belgians: always waffling 😂: just as you say Paul, why not really go for a price on pollution? $85 a tonne doesn’t even register. A Saudi prince with the hiccups has more impact on the pump price. If climate change is The Big Problem, then tax every vanity pick-up truck at 100%, make gas $5 a litre, and make public transit free, frequent and comfortable.
But no. There will be no honesty in the offing. Just slogans all the way to 2025 and Kingdom come.
The minute that the Liberals peddled a carbon tax rebate greater than what most Canadians would pay up front, the moral high ground was conceded. Add to that the GST cynically charged on top of the carbon tax and it becomes a shell game sham.
If the Liberals were serious about carbon taxes and the role that they play in climate action there would be NO rebates. Perhaps the carbon tax sleight of hand is necessary because most people have no way to finance the green energy proposals that would truly reduce their carbon footprint. And for larger fuel consumers, the technology doesn’t even exist for energy alternatives.
Finally, I suspect that the government is doing quite nicely by the carbon tax. Far better than they might admit. If that is true, then suspending the carbon tax increase isn’t very palatable for a government awash in red ink.
I'm happy to leave this discussion to subscribers, but I did want to chime in on one question: If there's a rebate, doesn't that make the carbon tax ineffective? My answer is that *in theory,* it sure doesn't.
Say I get $100 rebate and I pay $80 in taxes. But if I heroically compress my carbon use, I can get that $80 down to $30, and I still get a $100 rebate. So now I'm pocketing $70 (100 minus 30), instead of $20 (100 minus 80). The rebates are generic, they're not calculated based on individual use.
The other questions are whether the tax bites enough to drive that sort of adaptation, and whether alternatives to your current consumption habits are available. You can argue those a bunch of different ways, as we're seeing on this comment board.
I don’t want to get too much into the weeds on this but…all Trudeau’s nattering on most “voters” getting more back in rebates (!) ignores the fact that the carbon tax applies to numerous costs in the entire supply chain where there is no rebate(!). That is DEFINITELY increasing the cost of living! Sheesh! Oh silly me….
The Trudeau gov't spends to no end and has a carbon foot print bigger than the population of Canada...yet we the population of Canada pay! Something is very wrong with this picture. Get rid of the Carbon Tax which in turn will lower prices on everything we Canadians consume. Canada produces 1.4% of the Worlds pollution...yet Trudeau is destroying our Canada!! WHY!! What is in it for HIM(Trudeau)???
surely it is noteworthy that in an article about the politics of environmentalism no mention is made about the disastrous inadequacy of any and all official government interventions in the country for same, regardless of who is popular or who thinks they are unpopular.
the country in question having burned for months last summer, where fires have already started, and where all the fire prone areas that are plagued by drought are as dry as ever.
a bit too much political-analytical finesse here. we have no idea how unpopular a government will have to be eventually in this regard and how resistant the constituents will probably continue to be. while they get torched no less.
the issue here is not political style relative to government intervention and more like the rather obvious suicidal behavior of political leaders AND their constituents as they casually slide deeper into the apocalypse that has begun.
I can't help but wonder if the Prime Minister was not responding to this week's CBC's "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" segment in which Chris Wilson portraying PM Justin Trudeau in a "I'm Justin" - as "I'm Just Ken" Parody, has the character saying, "The only thing I care about is being liked."
As for the excess carbon in the Earth's atmosphere, I am still baffled how a carbon tax paid by Canadians is expected to control Mother Nature globally. If the intent is that we emit less carbon, then perhaps encouraging changing some of our polluting habits and leading by example would make more sense. For instance, rather than hopping a carbon spewing jet and preaching that the carbon tax is a deterrent and most of us will be reimbursed, perhaps our leaders should stay home, wear sweaters, drive smaller vehicles, and generally live less less extravagantly resulting in a lower carbon footprint?
Another grip about the carbon tax. The rebate to businesses is being reduced which means the businesses must charge their customers more to cover for this additional operating cost. Will this not be inflationary?
" Reason for becomming a paid subscriber to Paul Wells " :
To say thank you to Mr. Wells for his writing. And, maybe, so he can have a " rye and ginger on his current travels, put his feet up and take a step back from " the pot is calling the kettle black" hypocrisy of Canadian politics.
By June 13, 1993, Mulroney was just days away from having his successor in place - earlier in the year, February 24th, he informed his party that he would not stand for re-election. This was a sad day for some of us. While low in the polls, Mulroney had delivered two majority governments (not done by a Conservative leader since Sir John, and not done since). And national majorities. Many wanted him to stay. But he thought otherwise. So to me, The Post piece was a long form interview for DC big wigs. Young family. Mouths to feed. Etc.
What that was yesterday was something else. Not sure what. But something else.
Below is a post from Paul’s last piece. My thoughts on back-to-back majorities. Short version - it’s really hard to win back-to-back majorities and even when you do, it may not be because you did everything right.
I think much of what we are seeing finds its roots in the first mandate. They over promised, feverishly ‘implemented’, got to 2018 and discovered they needed to wedge their way into maybe a majority, maybe not.
Low-bridging the climate plan implementation in the first mandate - hope folks get comfortable with it come the re-elect - made a lot of political sense. Secure a second majority and test the waters for more, faster. But they cashed in their chips to drive wedges for meagre advantage (the fabled ‘efficient vote’ pundits and others say to explain why a party with 31% popular vote get to run the country). What they did is the opposite of building policy consensus. Building something durable. Lasting. Difficult for your successors to repeal - like a free trade agreement or a goods and services tax.
So what was yesterday? I said in another place that it may be generational, but I knew inflation to be the thing that ends governments. So at the very moment the word became a big part of life, they should have slowed their role on climate policy. Got busy looking like you’re not the problem. But having wedged their way to power, they couldn’t figure out any other way and kept going. And we are where we are.
So knowing he now owns a losing hand, perhaps he too is just a guy doing an interview with The Post. But 2024 style - a different order. After all, there’s still snow on the ground in Ottawa and he’s not going until the grass is green. And no doubt he would have spoken to MBM days prior to his passing. And that too is on his mind.
Here’s my take on back to back majorities.
(I’m going to exclude Chretien from this broad generalization. From day one - given the centre-right split - he was headed for reelection. Majority number was 155 seats. He got ~two-thirds of the way there in Ontario alone. And did so three times.)
Majority governments have ample opportunity to sow their own re-election fate. Standing astride a magnificent country with all the levers, it’s only the bedevilling politics that you need to worry about.
But my life time, there has only been one PM who mastered majority government politics: Brian Mulroney. And his is a cautionary tale.
(I worked in the trenches as a lowly Private in MBM’s army in his first majority. I have enormous respect for him and amongst those saddened by his February 24th, 1993 decision to leave.)
Much has been said and written of regarding his celebrated successes, particularly free-trade and the GST. Both, best I can tell, did not feature in election plans and re-elecion plans.
That is to say, sworn-in as an opponent to free trade and four years later campaigning for his life to save a free trade deal is something to behold. You could make a similar point regarding the GST - not in the platform
In ‘84 and baked into the 1988 campaign a year earlier with the ‘87 White Paper.
Some would rightly make the argument that ‘they kept big promises and earned reelection’. Ending the NEP is the most obvious. Repealing FIRA is another. But many of these same people would go on to say that elections are all about ‘what are you going to do for me?’ not ‘what have you done for me?’ This tracks for me as does acceptability of your opponent factor. In the case of MBM, he was facing Turner and few doubted his ability to do the job.
Which brings me to the caution. Mulroney, swept to power with breakthroughs across the country and a government known for deep, meaningful changes but barely a clue on how they would win reelection.
‘Managing change’ was the call to action. (Comically, the beta version was ‘hard work’ as in ‘they may not be perfect, but they are working hard.’ It was rejected when Crosbie assured the campaign that where he came from, no one had an interest in hard work. ‘We want nothing to do with it. And we certainly won’t vote for it!’ he informed the Big Blue brain trust.) So in ‘88, after a low bridge PC launch of ‘land is strong‘ 2.0 ads, Turner took the fight to MBM. The PC campaign team that said ‘free trade will not be an election issue’ spent most of the post-debate days saying just that over and over. Until Mulroney ended their nonsense by sidelining them. The light had gone on one tour day in Vancouver when he shared the stage and a spirited defence of free trade with the PC candidate for Vancouver Centre. His network had also told him that the bottom was falling out and he needed take control. He did. He won.
So it seems clear to me, in terms of all the others who failed to secure back to back majorities failed because they lacked a sufficiently audacious reelection bid on offer.
Paul’s ‘no game some 2018’ regarding this government can be said of the Harper government in 2012. The angry Joe Oliver outburst in January of that year began their descent into the sore-winner category but spoiling for reelection largely because the alternatives were not acceptable. Not ready, they said.
The other common thread, some might say, is the corrosive byproduct of central control. When you only like your ideas, you run off people with ideas. These two things might be connected.
We’ll see if the next ‘first majority term Prime Minister’ will add their name to a short list of one. And it may be a record majority itself. But the real test will be reelection. Even the one success was bedeviled by the politics of mastering a second majority.
I wish that Canada would have followed the example of countries in Europe on how to tackle the question of Climate Change. Norway is a good example, do not impose a tax, simply take away taxes from people who go electric. That would be a popular one with the public. Making those who refuse to go along pay more and more. The public would quickly go for other alternatives. It is important also to stop the squabbles with Provincial Premiers. It can be done but requires effort and less partisan politics. I honestly do not believe that PM JT has what it takes and neither do his advisers.
Good job Paul. I support the carbon tax the principal of it -the goal of it. But Trudeau's messaging on it has been horribly weak...with conflation. But axe the tax is moronically short- sighted.
I wish there were carbon tax rebate graphs showing province by province amounts, frequency and income threshold required to receive. Here in BC, individual, couple and family income governs who receives a rebate cheque four times per year. I have read but do not understand how the rebates work in Quebec or in the Northwest Territories, another excluded federal rebate area. The cries of opposition to the Carbon Tax would increase significantly if citizens knew what the rebate story is across the country, I suspect.
I think we now know who helped Princess Kate with her Photoshopping. Keep your day job, Paul. :)
Honesty on all sides would be appreciated by this humble voter. Conservatives on provincial and federal scenes aren’t putting forward climate plans, so are being fundamentally dishonest with Canadians: they welcome voters to conclude that climate change is a hoax, or not so bad, or somebody else’s problem but not yours. Liberals are like Belgians: always waffling 😂: just as you say Paul, why not really go for a price on pollution? $85 a tonne doesn’t even register. A Saudi prince with the hiccups has more impact on the pump price. If climate change is The Big Problem, then tax every vanity pick-up truck at 100%, make gas $5 a litre, and make public transit free, frequent and comfortable.
But no. There will be no honesty in the offing. Just slogans all the way to 2025 and Kingdom come.
The minute that the Liberals peddled a carbon tax rebate greater than what most Canadians would pay up front, the moral high ground was conceded. Add to that the GST cynically charged on top of the carbon tax and it becomes a shell game sham.
If the Liberals were serious about carbon taxes and the role that they play in climate action there would be NO rebates. Perhaps the carbon tax sleight of hand is necessary because most people have no way to finance the green energy proposals that would truly reduce their carbon footprint. And for larger fuel consumers, the technology doesn’t even exist for energy alternatives.
Finally, I suspect that the government is doing quite nicely by the carbon tax. Far better than they might admit. If that is true, then suspending the carbon tax increase isn’t very palatable for a government awash in red ink.
I'm happy to leave this discussion to subscribers, but I did want to chime in on one question: If there's a rebate, doesn't that make the carbon tax ineffective? My answer is that *in theory,* it sure doesn't.
Say I get $100 rebate and I pay $80 in taxes. But if I heroically compress my carbon use, I can get that $80 down to $30, and I still get a $100 rebate. So now I'm pocketing $70 (100 minus 30), instead of $20 (100 minus 80). The rebates are generic, they're not calculated based on individual use.
The other questions are whether the tax bites enough to drive that sort of adaptation, and whether alternatives to your current consumption habits are available. You can argue those a bunch of different ways, as we're seeing on this comment board.
I don’t want to get too much into the weeds on this but…all Trudeau’s nattering on most “voters” getting more back in rebates (!) ignores the fact that the carbon tax applies to numerous costs in the entire supply chain where there is no rebate(!). That is DEFINITELY increasing the cost of living! Sheesh! Oh silly me….
The Trudeau gov't spends to no end and has a carbon foot print bigger than the population of Canada...yet we the population of Canada pay! Something is very wrong with this picture. Get rid of the Carbon Tax which in turn will lower prices on everything we Canadians consume. Canada produces 1.4% of the Worlds pollution...yet Trudeau is destroying our Canada!! WHY!! What is in it for HIM(Trudeau)???
surely it is noteworthy that in an article about the politics of environmentalism no mention is made about the disastrous inadequacy of any and all official government interventions in the country for same, regardless of who is popular or who thinks they are unpopular.
the country in question having burned for months last summer, where fires have already started, and where all the fire prone areas that are plagued by drought are as dry as ever.
a bit too much political-analytical finesse here. we have no idea how unpopular a government will have to be eventually in this regard and how resistant the constituents will probably continue to be. while they get torched no less.
the issue here is not political style relative to government intervention and more like the rather obvious suicidal behavior of political leaders AND their constituents as they casually slide deeper into the apocalypse that has begun.
Beware when a PM who admitted he does not understand basic math tells us his carbon rebate scheme is just 'basic math".
Superb photochop job! Hilarious, too!
"My job is not to be popular..."
I can't help but wonder if the Prime Minister was not responding to this week's CBC's "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" segment in which Chris Wilson portraying PM Justin Trudeau in a "I'm Justin" - as "I'm Just Ken" Parody, has the character saying, "The only thing I care about is being liked."
As for the excess carbon in the Earth's atmosphere, I am still baffled how a carbon tax paid by Canadians is expected to control Mother Nature globally. If the intent is that we emit less carbon, then perhaps encouraging changing some of our polluting habits and leading by example would make more sense. For instance, rather than hopping a carbon spewing jet and preaching that the carbon tax is a deterrent and most of us will be reimbursed, perhaps our leaders should stay home, wear sweaters, drive smaller vehicles, and generally live less less extravagantly resulting in a lower carbon footprint?
Another grip about the carbon tax. The rebate to businesses is being reduced which means the businesses must charge their customers more to cover for this additional operating cost. Will this not be inflationary?
" Reason for becomming a paid subscriber to Paul Wells " :
To say thank you to Mr. Wells for his writing. And, maybe, so he can have a " rye and ginger on his current travels, put his feet up and take a step back from " the pot is calling the kettle black" hypocrisy of Canadian politics.
“Photoshop is one of the things I’m worst at, so this is the best I could do on short notice.”
Still arguably a better job than the Princess of Wales.
By June 13, 1993, Mulroney was just days away from having his successor in place - earlier in the year, February 24th, he informed his party that he would not stand for re-election. This was a sad day for some of us. While low in the polls, Mulroney had delivered two majority governments (not done by a Conservative leader since Sir John, and not done since). And national majorities. Many wanted him to stay. But he thought otherwise. So to me, The Post piece was a long form interview for DC big wigs. Young family. Mouths to feed. Etc.
What that was yesterday was something else. Not sure what. But something else.
Below is a post from Paul’s last piece. My thoughts on back-to-back majorities. Short version - it’s really hard to win back-to-back majorities and even when you do, it may not be because you did everything right.
I think much of what we are seeing finds its roots in the first mandate. They over promised, feverishly ‘implemented’, got to 2018 and discovered they needed to wedge their way into maybe a majority, maybe not.
Low-bridging the climate plan implementation in the first mandate - hope folks get comfortable with it come the re-elect - made a lot of political sense. Secure a second majority and test the waters for more, faster. But they cashed in their chips to drive wedges for meagre advantage (the fabled ‘efficient vote’ pundits and others say to explain why a party with 31% popular vote get to run the country). What they did is the opposite of building policy consensus. Building something durable. Lasting. Difficult for your successors to repeal - like a free trade agreement or a goods and services tax.
So what was yesterday? I said in another place that it may be generational, but I knew inflation to be the thing that ends governments. So at the very moment the word became a big part of life, they should have slowed their role on climate policy. Got busy looking like you’re not the problem. But having wedged their way to power, they couldn’t figure out any other way and kept going. And we are where we are.
So knowing he now owns a losing hand, perhaps he too is just a guy doing an interview with The Post. But 2024 style - a different order. After all, there’s still snow on the ground in Ottawa and he’s not going until the grass is green. And no doubt he would have spoken to MBM days prior to his passing. And that too is on his mind.
Here’s my take on back to back majorities.
(I’m going to exclude Chretien from this broad generalization. From day one - given the centre-right split - he was headed for reelection. Majority number was 155 seats. He got ~two-thirds of the way there in Ontario alone. And did so three times.)
Majority governments have ample opportunity to sow their own re-election fate. Standing astride a magnificent country with all the levers, it’s only the bedevilling politics that you need to worry about.
But my life time, there has only been one PM who mastered majority government politics: Brian Mulroney. And his is a cautionary tale.
(I worked in the trenches as a lowly Private in MBM’s army in his first majority. I have enormous respect for him and amongst those saddened by his February 24th, 1993 decision to leave.)
Much has been said and written of regarding his celebrated successes, particularly free-trade and the GST. Both, best I can tell, did not feature in election plans and re-elecion plans.
That is to say, sworn-in as an opponent to free trade and four years later campaigning for his life to save a free trade deal is something to behold. You could make a similar point regarding the GST - not in the platform
In ‘84 and baked into the 1988 campaign a year earlier with the ‘87 White Paper.
Some would rightly make the argument that ‘they kept big promises and earned reelection’. Ending the NEP is the most obvious. Repealing FIRA is another. But many of these same people would go on to say that elections are all about ‘what are you going to do for me?’ not ‘what have you done for me?’ This tracks for me as does acceptability of your opponent factor. In the case of MBM, he was facing Turner and few doubted his ability to do the job.
Which brings me to the caution. Mulroney, swept to power with breakthroughs across the country and a government known for deep, meaningful changes but barely a clue on how they would win reelection.
‘Managing change’ was the call to action. (Comically, the beta version was ‘hard work’ as in ‘they may not be perfect, but they are working hard.’ It was rejected when Crosbie assured the campaign that where he came from, no one had an interest in hard work. ‘We want nothing to do with it. And we certainly won’t vote for it!’ he informed the Big Blue brain trust.) So in ‘88, after a low bridge PC launch of ‘land is strong‘ 2.0 ads, Turner took the fight to MBM. The PC campaign team that said ‘free trade will not be an election issue’ spent most of the post-debate days saying just that over and over. Until Mulroney ended their nonsense by sidelining them. The light had gone on one tour day in Vancouver when he shared the stage and a spirited defence of free trade with the PC candidate for Vancouver Centre. His network had also told him that the bottom was falling out and he needed take control. He did. He won.
So it seems clear to me, in terms of all the others who failed to secure back to back majorities failed because they lacked a sufficiently audacious reelection bid on offer.
Paul’s ‘no game some 2018’ regarding this government can be said of the Harper government in 2012. The angry Joe Oliver outburst in January of that year began their descent into the sore-winner category but spoiling for reelection largely because the alternatives were not acceptable. Not ready, they said.
The other common thread, some might say, is the corrosive byproduct of central control. When you only like your ideas, you run off people with ideas. These two things might be connected.
We’ll see if the next ‘first majority term Prime Minister’ will add their name to a short list of one. And it may be a record majority itself. But the real test will be reelection. Even the one success was bedeviled by the politics of mastering a second majority.
I wish that Canada would have followed the example of countries in Europe on how to tackle the question of Climate Change. Norway is a good example, do not impose a tax, simply take away taxes from people who go electric. That would be a popular one with the public. Making those who refuse to go along pay more and more. The public would quickly go for other alternatives. It is important also to stop the squabbles with Provincial Premiers. It can be done but requires effort and less partisan politics. I honestly do not believe that PM JT has what it takes and neither do his advisers.
Good job Paul. I support the carbon tax the principal of it -the goal of it. But Trudeau's messaging on it has been horribly weak...with conflation. But axe the tax is moronically short- sighted.
I wish there were carbon tax rebate graphs showing province by province amounts, frequency and income threshold required to receive. Here in BC, individual, couple and family income governs who receives a rebate cheque four times per year. I have read but do not understand how the rebates work in Quebec or in the Northwest Territories, another excluded federal rebate area. The cries of opposition to the Carbon Tax would increase significantly if citizens knew what the rebate story is across the country, I suspect.