From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax should be tucked under his arm while he doesn’t let the door hit them on the way out.

And Liberal caucus members need to make sure that happens.

Those in doubt need to ask themselves two questions.

Practically, why should Canadians keep paying the carbon tax for another few months before the next election?

Politically, why should government MPs keep paying a price with voters because of the carbon tax?

The carbon tax can be slayed on Wednesday during the Liberal party’s emergency caucus meeting.

Caucus finally rose up and finally forced the prime minister to face the reality that he can’t get re-elected.

But that’s only half of the job.

The problem isn’t just one person. It’s the policies. And Trudeau’s trademark carbon tax is one of his biggest failures. Replacing the PM while keeping the carbon tax is like switching the blackjack dealer while still facing a stacked deck.

And the Liberal caucus knows this.

Those Liberal MPs have been yelled at by their constituents about the carbon tax for years.

Hardworking people have been telling these MPs they can’t afford the carbon tax and it’s unfair to be punished for driving to work, heating their homes and buying food.

Those MPs have seen their constituents’ heating bills, the costs of their commutes and the invoices for their businesses.

They know the carbon tax adds about $13 to the cost of filling a minivan and about $20 extra to fill a pickup. They know the carbon tax is costing long haul truckers about $2 billion this year and they know it will cost farmers $1 billion in the next five years.

They know Canada misses its emissions targets, even with the carbon tax.

And here’s the big one: these MPs know the carbon tax is getting hiked on April 1.

The timeline has to be terrifying for Liberals seeking re-election.

March 24, the House of Commons reconvenes.

The government presents its Throne speech and immediately starts facing confidence votes with all opposition parties promising to vote against the government.

Then, on April 1, the government raises the carbon tax again.

Imagine door knocking after losing a confidence vote and raising the carbon tax.

Imagine being an MP from southern Ontario and a greenhouse tomato grower walks into your office with a chart showing his carbon tax costs.

Imagine trying to tell that farmer that he “gets more back” than he pays in the carbon tax.

Picture being an MP from Halifax and telling your constituents they need to buy an electric heat pump as their sole source of winter warmth before the carbon tax slaps them again.

Nova Scotia has charming weather events such as ice fog which seeps into a house like a ghost from a Dickens novel. So, most Maritime folks still need a furnace and Trudeau’s carbon tax punishes them.

These MPs have all been hollered at by their constituents who have been wounded by the carbon tax.

No matter how much the MPs may have pleaded with Trudeau behind closed doors, he kept the carbon tax and forced his MPs to defend it.

Trudeau tied this millstone to the necks of his MPs and didn’t care how much it ground them down.

But he’s leaving now.

And these Liberal MPs have the opportunity to cut the rope and free themselves from Trudeau’s carbon tax.

The Liberal caucus is holding an emergency meeting on Parliament Hill on Wednesday, and those members of Parliament need to demand an end to carbon tax then and there.

Why should they force Canadians to keep muttering profanities when they fill up their cars or pay the carbon tax charges on their heating bills?

Why should Liberal MPs face day after day of berating phone calls from constituents who don’t buy PMO talking points about the carbon tax?

The least they can do is spare Canadians the cost of the carbon tax right now and try to do the right thing in the end.

On Wednesday, Liberal MPs have to demand an end to the carbon tax.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Must we cancel fossil fuels to save the earth? No.

James Warren, adjunct professor of environmental sociology at the University of Regina said so in a recent paper for the Johnson Shoyama School of Public Policy, a joint effort by his university and the University of Saskatchewan. The title says it all: “Maximizing Canadian oil production and exports over the medium-term could help reduce CO2 emissions for the long-term.”

The professor admits on the face of it, his argument sounds like a “drink your way to sobriety solution.” However, he does make the defensible and factual case, pointing to Canadian oil reserves and a Scandinavian example.

Decades ago, Norway imitated the 1970’s Heritage Fund in Alberta that set aside a designated portion of the government’s petroleum revenues for an investment fund. Unlike Alberta, Norway stuck to that approach. Today, those investments are being used to develop clean energy and offer incentives to buy electric vehicles.

Norway’s two largest oil companies, Aker BP and Equinor ASA have committed $19 billion USD to develop fields in the North and Norwegian Seas. They argue that without this production, Norway would never be able to afford a green transition.

The same could be said for Canada. Warren laid out stats since 2010 that showed Canada’s oil exports contribute an average of 4.7% of the national GDP. Yet, this noteworthy amount is not nearly what it could be.

Had Trans Mountain, Northern Gateway, and Energy East pipelines been up and running at full capacity from 2015 to 2022, Warren estimates Canada would have seen $292 billion Canadian in additional export revenues. Onerous regulations, not diminished demand, are responsible for Canada’s squandered opportunities, Warren argues this must change.

So much more could be said. Southeast Asia still relies heavily on coal-fired power for its emerging industrialization, a source with twice the carbon emission intensity as natural gas. If lower global emissions are the goal, Canadian oil and natural gas exports offer less carbon-intensive options.

China’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are more than four times what they were in 1990, during which the U.S. has seen its emissions drop. By now, China is responsible for 30% of global emissions, and the U.S. just 11%. Nevertheless, China built 95% of the world’s new coal-fired power plants in 2023. It aims for carbon neutrality by 2060, not 2050, like the rest of the world.

As of 2023, Canada contributes 1.4 percent of global GHGs, the tenth most in the world and the 15th highest per capita. Given its development and resource-based economy, this should be viewed as an impressively low amount, all spread out over a geographically diverse area and cold climate.

This stat also reveals a glaring reality: if Canada was destroyed, and every animal and human died, all industry and vehicles stopped, and every furnace and fire ceased to burn, 98.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions would remain. So for whom, or to what end, should Canada kneecap its energy production and the industry it fuels?

The only ones served by a world of minimal production is a global aristocracy whose hegemony would no longer be threatened by the accumulated wealth and influence of a growing middle class. That aristocracy is the real beneficiary of prevailing climate change narratives on what is happening in our weather, why it is happening, and how best to handle it.

Remember, another warming period occurred 1000 years ago. The Medieval Warming Period took place between 750 and 1350 AD and was warmest from 950 to 1045, affecting Europe, North America, and the North Atlantic. By some estimates, average summer temperatures in England and Central Europe were 0.7-1.4 degrees higher than now.

Was that warming due to SUVs or other man-made activity? No. Did that world collapse in a series of floods, fires, earthquakes, and hurricanes? No, not in Europe at least. Crop yields grew, new cities emerged, alpine tree lines rose, and the European population more than doubled.

If the world warms again, Canada could be a big winner. In May of 2018, Nature.com published a study by Chinese and Canadian academics entitled, Northward shift of the agricultural climate zone under 21st-Century global climate change. If the band of land useful for crops shifts north, Canada would get an additional 3.1 million square kilometers of farmland by 2099.

Other computer models suggest warming temperatures would cause damaging weather. Their accuracy is debatable, but even if we concede their claims, it does not follow that energy production should drop. We would need more resilient housing to handle the storms and we cannot afford them without a robust economy powered by robust energy production. Solar, wind, and geothermal only go so far.

Whether temperatures are warming or not, Canada should continue tapping into the resources she is blessed with. Wealth is a helpful shelter in the storms of life and is no different for the storms of the planet. Canada is sitting on abundant energy and should not let dubious arguments hold back their development.

Lee Harding is Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.