National
Trudeau gov’t considered using term ‘heat-flation’ to link rising costs with ‘climate change’
From LifeSiteNews
Recently revealed documents show that members of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet were looking to associate rising inflation in Canada with “climate change” by using the term “heat-flation,” but abandoned the idea after negative feedback from polls.
The documents show that Trudeau’s own Privy Council Office in an April 24 report said it had commissioned its own “in-house” research on the “concepts of ‘climate-flation’ and ‘heat-flation’” to see Canadians take on the terms.
Predictably, the bid to try and convince Canadians that the rising costs of living was the result of so-called “climate change” did not go over well with those polled as nobody had even heard of the term “heat-flation.”
The information regarding the poll was gleaned from a report titled Continuous Qualitative Data Collection Of Canadians’ Views, as noted by Blacklock’s Reporter, and asked if Canadians had heard of these “terms before” with “none indicated they had.”
“Describing what they believed these terms referred to, many expected they were likely connected to the issue of climate change and rising economic costs of its effect as well as efforts to mitigate its impacts going forward,” noted the report.
“To clarify, participants were informed ‘heat-flation’ is when extreme heat caused by climate change makes food and other items more expensive, and that ‘climate-flation’ was a broader term that encompassed all of the ways in which climate change can cause prices to go up including but not limited to extreme heat.”
The report noted that while some of the people polled thought “climate change” might have had some effect on inflation, many other issues were seen as the cause.
The report noted that “All believed climate change was having at least some impact on the price of food” but not in the way the government narrative asserts.
The report found that some Canadians “felt that in addition to extreme heat and drought making it more difficult for farmers to protect their crops and livestock, extreme weather events could also cause damage to vital roadways and infrastructure making it more difficult to transport food products across the country. A few also expressed that in addition to impacting Canadian food production climate change could also make it more expensive to import food.”
Others, however, “expressed the opinion the federal government needed to reduce its spending, believing that growing deficits in recent years had contributed to rising inflation.”
Of note is that no Canadian government has balanced the budget since 2007, and many critics have pointed to this ever-increasing debt-load to the reason inflation has rocked the country.
When it came to the carbon tax, many expressed the view that the “carbon pricing system had served to further increase the rate of inflation.”
Whether its inflation, the carbon tax or other factors, it remains true that Canada’s poverty rate is on the rise.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a July survey found that nearly half of Canadians are just $200 away from financial ruin as the costs of housing, food and other necessities has gone up massively since Trudeau took power in 2015.
Critics argue that instead of addressing these issues, the Trudeau government has instead used the “climate change” agenda to justify applying a punitive carbon tax on Canadians.
However, polls indicate that most Canadians are not as concerned with “climate change” as they are with other issues, and many do not buy into the alarmist government narrative. Many critics have also accused government officials of being hypocrites, as they punish Canadians via the carbon tax and other measures while themselves taking advantage of frequent flights at the expense of taxpayers.
Despite the rising unpopularity of such policies, the Trudeau government has continued to push a radical environmental agenda similar to those endorsed by globalist groups like the World Economic Forum and the United Nations.
From the Fraser Institute
By Tom Flanagan
The history of Ile-à-la-Crosse (IALC) in northern Saskatchewan goes back to 1776, when Thomas Frobisher established a fur trading post. Catholic Oblate missionaries arrived in 1846 and founded a small day school the next year, which was turned into a boarding school in 1860. Louis Riel’s sister Sara taught there until she died of TB in 1883. Under various names and at various locations, the school survived until the early 1970s.
The students were mainly Métis from northern Saskatchewan, with a sprinkling of Indian and white children. It was never an Indian Residential School (IRS) in the legal sense, though the federal government did at times make financial contributions proportional to the small number of status Indian children who attended. The school was mainly supported by the Oblate order and the Grey Nuns, with contributions from the province of Saskatchewan in later years.
Because the school was not an IRS, those who had attended were excluded from the IRS Settlement Agreement negotiated by Paul Martin’s government in 2005 and implemented by Stephen Harper’s government afterwards. Most students had been Métis, and the Settlement Agreement generally excluded Métis who had attended mission boarding schools that were not IRS. Wanting to share in the $5 billion financial compensation provided by the Agreement, the IALC students started legal action, using Tony Merchant’s law firm. Merchant, however, moved too slowly for the complainants, so the Sotos firm started another class action in 2022.
Following the “resistance is futile” policy enunciated by Jodi Wilson-Raybould when she was minister of justice, the federal government had already decided not to litigate, having signed in 2019 a memorandum of understanding to negotiate the claims. In March 2025, the federal government reached an agreement-in-principle with IALC students, which will go before a federal court judge for approval in January 2026. Saskatchewan announced its own agreement-in-principle in September, which will also go before the federal court.
Canada is putting up $27 million and Saskatchewan $40 million for individual compensation. With an estimated 600-700 “survivors,” this equates to individual payouts of about $100,000 apiece. This is admittedly guesswork, because neither agreement-in-principle has been published. News reports indicate that “families” will be involved in the compensation, so a larger number of claimants may materialize.
The federal news release says that compensation is being paid for “cultural loss abuse,” which includes loss of proficiency in the Cree and Michif languages spoken by the Métis in that area. Sexual and physical abuse are not mentioned, even though “survivors” claim to have been abused. Payments will be made to all who attended, as with the federal day school settlement and the “common experience” payment in the IRS settlement.
In the world of government, the joint payout of $67 million is a penny-ante affair, but the long-term implications are much greater. There are tens of thousands of Métis adults who attended mission boarding schools, both Protestant and Catholic, that were not considered IRS and were not admitted to the IRS Settlement Agreement. For them, the IALC settlement is like a dam breaking, setting a precedent for compensation. Class action law firms will commence new actions. Individual cases will be small, but there will be so many of them that the federal government will probably consolidate them into one multi-billion-dollar settlement, and the provinces will fall into line.
When Prime Minister Harper decided to implement the IRS settlement Agreement, he thought it would bring peace on the Indigenous front, allowing the government to move forward. It was an understandable hope, but in fact that decision unleashed a series of class actions that have cost taxpayers more than $50 billion and rising. When Harper was in power, he kept the lid on; but payments exploded after Justin Trudeau became prime minister in 2015 and made Wilson-Raybould minister of justice. Her instruction to Department of Justice lawyers to negotiate rather than litigate, which is still in force, caused resistance to Indigenous class actions to collapse and facilitated enormous payouts culminating in the $40 billion-plus child-care settlement. Now the Métis will get their piece of this ever-expanding payout pie.
Tom Flanagan
From the Fraser Institute
Prime Minister Mark Carney recently visited the White House for meetings with President Donald Trump. In front of the cameras, the mood was congenial, with both men complimenting each other and promising future cooperation in several areas despite the looming threat of Trump tariffs.
But in the last two weeks, in an effort to secure U.S. access to key critical minerals, the Trump administration has purchased sizable stakes in in two Canadian mining companies—Trilogy Metals and Lithium Americas Corp (LAC). And these aggressive moves by Washington have created a dilemma for Ottawa.
Since news broke of the investments, the Carney government has been quiet, stating only it “welcomes foreign direct investment that benefits Canada’s economy. As part of this process, reviews of foreign investments in critical minerals will be conducted in the best interests of Canadians.”
In the case of LAC, lithium is included in Ottawa’s list of critical minerals that are “essential to Canada’s economic or national security.” And the Investment Canada Act (ICA) requires the government to scrutinize all foreign investments by state-owned investors on national security grounds. Indeed, the ICA specifically notes the potential impact of an investment on critical minerals and critical mineral supply chains.
But since the lithium will be mined and processed in Nevada and presumably utilized in the United States, the Trump administration’s investment will likely have little impact on Canada’s critical mineral supply chain. But here’s the problem. If the Carney government initiates a review, it may enrage Trump at a critical moment in the bilateral relationship, particularly as both governments prepare to renegotiate the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).
A second dilemma is whether the Carney government should apply the ICA’s “net benefits” test, which measures the investment’s impact on employment, innovation, productivity and economic activity in Canada. The investment must also comport with Canada’s industrial, economic and cultural policies.
Here, the Trump administration’s investment in LAC will likely fail the ICA test, since the main benefit to Canada is that Canadian investors in LAC have been substantially enriched by the U.S. government’s initiative (a week before the Trump administration announced the investment, LAC’s shares were trading at around US$3; two days after the announcement, the shares were trading at US$8.50). And despite any arguments to the contrary, the ICA has never viewed capital gains by Canadian investors as a benefit to Canada.
Similarly, the shares of Trilogy Minerals surged some 200 per cent after the Trump administration announced its investment to support Trilogy’s mineral exploration in Alaska. Again, Canadian shareholders benefited, yet according to the ICA’s current net benefits test, that’s irrelevant.
But in reality, inflows of foreign capital augment domestic savings, which, in turn, provide financing for domestic business investment in Canada. And the prospect of realizing capital gains from acquisitions made by foreign investors encourages startup Canadian companies.
So, what should the Carney government do?
In short, it should revise the ICA so that national security grounds are the sole basis for approving or rejecting investments by foreign governments in Canadian companies. This may still not sit well in Washington, but the prospect of retaliation by the Trump administration should not prevent Canada from applying its sovereign laws. However, the Carney government should eliminate the net benefits test, or at least recognize that foreign investments that enrich Canadian shareholders convey benefits to Canada.
These recent investments by the Trump administration may not be unique. There are hundreds of Canadian-owned mining companies operating in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions, and future investments in some of those companies by the U.S. or other foreign governments are quite possible. Going forward, Canada’s review process should be robust while recognizing all the benefits of foreign investment.
Steven Globerman
The City of Red Deer’s Financial Troubles: Here Are The Candidates I Am Voting For And Why.
UN, Gates Foundation push for digital ID across 50 nations by 2028
Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design
The Trials of Liberty: What the Truckers Taught Canada About Power and Protest
-
Alberta1 day ago
Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design
-
National1 day agoDemocracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case
-
Business1 day agoOver two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy
-
Business2 days agoTrump Admin Blows Up UN ‘Global Green New Scam’ Tax Push, Forcing Pullback
-
Business2 days agoTrump Blocks UN’s Back Door Carbon Tax
-
Media2 days agoCanada’s top Parliamentary reporters easily manipulated by the PMO’s “anonymous sources”
-
Agriculture2 days agoIs the CFIA a Rogue Agency or Just Taking Orders from a Rogue Federal Government?
-
Red Deer2 days agoYour last minute election prep: Common Sense Red Deer talks to the candidates