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 Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Diplomacy is often a world of planned whispers and subtle signals to communicate complex messages. So, even sleepy folks noticed when the PM made a much-publicized bold (and seemingly impromptu) move and flew to Florida to play Trump-Whisperer. What was the PM hoping to get from that appearance? The best way to evaluate such diplomatic moves is to measure results against expectations.
From start to finish, the trip read like Trump’s move, when the president flew in a similarly bold and unanticipated fashion to pacify the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un –the “Little Rocketman.” Trudeau’s trip to see Trump was modelled on Trump’s Korean trip; it was an attempt to out-Trump Trump. That was the expectation.
Amid talk of nuclear weapons deployment, Trump surprised the world in 2017 by going to North Korea to meet with the leader of the most insular country on the planet, a man the traditional media painted as an irrational lunatic. That is not unlike the image of Donald Trump that CBC and the MSM chorus in Canada present.
Similarly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau surprised his followers and detractors, by flying to Mar-a-Lago, the capital of Trump’s world. The purpose was not to avoid a thermonuclear war but a trade war between the two countries. Such a trade war would hurt both countries but could devastate the “vibecessing” Canadian economy, which the Trudeau government is desperately trying to perk up expecting a general election in months.
The news was leaked once the Prime Minister was in the air heading south. A flood of commentators, who pretended to have no authority to speak on the subject, began to discuss what the trip meant and how brave and bold, silly or foolish, the Prime Minister was for undertaking it. This was like the attention surrounding Trump’s journey to North Korea.
The most surprising aspect of the announcement was that Trump had previously mocked and ridiculed the North Korean leader. While we don’t have direct insight into what the North Koreans called Trump at the other end, it was probably far from flattering. Consequently, it was hard to imagine how their interactions would play out. Many argued that the two men had nothing in common, often expressing this with professorial certainty.
There is no evidence that Prime Minister Trudeau has ever called Trump any nasty names in public, but Trump has not been as careful. After the G7 meeting in 2018, Trump referred to Trudeau as being “weak and dishonest.” However, we do know that Justin’s favourite boogeyman is the American “extreme-right,” of which progressive Canadians think Trump is the godfather. Whatever Trudeau and prominent government ministers think of Trump conservatives, they also think of Trump. There are many examples of how government members weaponized the concept. In October 2024, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland addressed criticisms from Conservative MPs by stating she wasn’t intimidated by “juvenile playground insults from the wannabe MAGA maple syrup Conservatives.” Similarly, amid discussions about Prime Minister Trudeau’s leadership in October 2024, some government members referred to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as “Maple MAGA” or “Canada’s Donald Trump,” expressing platitudes about threats to democracy. Readers might also recall how every lieutenant in the Trudeau legions pretended MAGA Trumpeteers and Trump himself had crushed Roe v. Wade and then claimed Canada’s Conservatives would do the same.
The PM, too, indulged in the same kind of attack during a July 2023 visit to the Baitun Nur Mosque in Calgary. During the event, Trudeau addressed concerns among the Muslim community regarding his support for the Transexual agenda and the claims of inclusive education in schools. He quickly invoked the anti-American narrative, shaming the man who posed the question for accepting what Trudeau labelled as radical right-wing American propaganda. Trudeau suggested that misinformation about Canada’s sexual education curriculum was being propagated by “the American right-wing,” which he argued was causing unnecessary division and fear among Canadians.
Many people were surprised to see Trump attempting what others had never tried in North Korea. That reaction was akin to that of Canadians who knew what Trudeau and his cabinet had said about Donald Trump and the American right. For Prime Minister Trudeau it was a victory to show pictures of his foray into Trumpian Mordor, giving him the chance to appoint himself the hero who will stop the detonation of a 20 percent tariffs trade bomb.
Immediately following the US election, the Trudeau cabinet quickly backtracked on the Trump insults. They suddenly forgot how they were presenting Trump as the figure behind Pierre Poilievre and his “extreme right-wing politics.” This was done with the same enthusiasm that Trudeau’s critics summon when joking about his supposed genetic connection to Fidel Castro.
Trump’s visit to North Korea reduced some of the heated rhetoric between the two countries; however, the North Korean Stalinist regime remains intact, along with its nuclear capabilities. Trump and Kim Jong-un did not sign any treaty to regulate nuclear weapons or establish lasting peace between their nations. Similarly, Prime Minister Trudeau returned from Florida without any significant outcomes.
There was no joint statement or announcement of an agreement. There were promises to continue discussions, which does not constitute a victory. All Trudeau can claim is a public relations victory like the one Trump touted after his return from North Korea, and that is not insignificant. But showing that Trump was not mean to him is hardly a diplomatic victory.
Trump provided Trudeau with opportunities for photo sessions without conceding anything or making any promises. He maintained his firm demand that Canada strengthen its border security to prevent drugs and potential terrorists from crossing freely. Trump takes satisfaction in the fact that a man he despises travelled to plead with him for leniency regarding his tariff threats. He is fully aware of this dynamic.
Prime Minister Trudeau may portray himself as someone who understands Trump well, but Trump holds the upper hand. He knows Trudeau is “weak” and desperately desires to maintain himself in power, despite his low popularity. Furthermore, Trump understands that Trudeau is willing to make significant political sacrifices to achieve a seemingly favourable resolution to the border issues. Trudeau badly needs a win, and Trump knows that Trudeau is willing to jeopardize his country’s economy to win. Consequently, Trump will likely capitalize on Trudeau’s vulnerabilities for all they are worth.
Trump understands that Trudeau is the ideal Canadian leader to engage with him, which should make Trudeau the least suitable person to negotiate with Trump if Canada’s interests are to be protected.
From that perspective, Trudeau’s trip to Florida is unlike Trump’s trip to North Korea. While both leaders sought to leverage their trips for political and public relations gains, the outcomes reveal the limitations of symbolic diplomacy and Trudeau’s inability to turn the trip into a long-term win. The latter is as much a function of the PM’s lack of skill as it is of the perception among voters that he is veritably done, no matter what.
Prime Minister Trudeau believes he is the only one who can deal with Trump from a position of strength, which is incorrect. His government has gimmicks but no strength left. That is why the prime minister pleads for a Team Canada approach to Trump and quickly condemns skepticism of his abilities as a national betrayal.
Trump will take advantage of that weakness –and if he can nail a man he despises as weak and woke, he will enjoy it the more. Out-Trumping Trump for domestic advantage was a fool’s errand.
Marco Navarro-Genie is VP Policy and Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of COVID-19: The Politics of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2020).
I want to write 5,000 words of narrative in the wake of Chrystia Freeland’s resignation, but we’re still in the middle of the story. Thoughts kind of pour out. I found myself telling La Presse, “‘What the f—k?’ has replaced ‘Hello’ as the standard greeting in Ottawa since Monday.” We’ll see whether they use that quote.
Here are some thoughts, from different angles. I don’t know whether Freeland’s resignation will blow over, the way Justin Trudeau’s last 20 messes did, because I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think Justin Trudeau hopes it’ll blow over. Because he always hopes it’ll blow over. I hear, as you do, rumours that the PM will resign.
On Monday night at the Laurier Club he didn’t look like he’d received the memo yet. On Tuesday his staff cancelled his year-end interviews, something I’ve never seen in 30 years in Ottawa. We’ll see.
Meanwhile, some thoughts.
1. A very British resignation
A standard conversational gambit in Ottawa this week is to point out that nobody’s ever seen a resignation letter like Freeland’s — I’ve given it some thought, and I’ve decided you’re a dink. (I paraphrase, barely.) Except that’s not quite true. Millions of people have seen dozens of resignation letters like it, because you see them every few weeks in the United Kingdom. And Chrystia Freeland was an editor in London for the Financial Times for years.
Canada is in some ways an unhealthily reticent country. I once covered an international summit where the only reason I knew anything the Canadian delegation had done was that I was sitting next to the journalists from France and I could overhear the French government’s briefings. Resignation letters here follow suit: it’s been a privilege, more time with my family, and out. You’re often left wondering, if you loved the boss so much, why leave?
But in England…
Rosie Duffield to Keir Starmer: “How dare you take our longed-for victory, the electorate’s sacred and precious trust, and throw it back in their individual faces and the faces of dedicated and hardworking Labour MPs?! The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party.”
John Glen to Boris Johnson: “I can no longer reconcile my commitment to the role and to the financial services sector with the complete lack of confidence I have in your continuing leadership of our country… [R]ecent events concerning the handling of the appointment of the former Deputy Chief Whip, and the poor judgement you have shown, have made it impossible for me to square continued service with my conscience. The country deserves better…”
Nadine Dorries to Rishi Sunak: “You flashed your gleaming smile in your Prada shoes and Savile Row suit from behind a camera, but you just weren’t listening… But worst of all has been the spectacle of a prime minister demeaning his office by opening the gates to whip up a public frenzy against one of his own MPs…Since you took office a year ago, the country is run by a zombie Parliament where nothing meaningful has happened. What exactly has been done or have you achieved?”
This newsletter is my full-time job. Paid subscriptions at $5 a month or $50 a year are a great way to read all my work here.
2. The Zoom call
I resist biography as an analytical tool. People outgrow their backgrounds all the time.
But just about everybody who follows politics has been wondering how Trudeau could fire his most loyal lieutenant by a Zoom call three days before he needed her to deliver a crucial fall economic statement. If the Globe’s latest story is true, and he told her Mark Carney would take the job without knowing whether Carney will take the job, that’s even wilder. Who does that?
The short answer is, somebody who is used to getting his way. Then you look at Trudeau’s life and you think, why wouldn’t he expect to get his way?
The rich kid always knows the normies will cover for him. If he needs a ride, some kid with stars in his eyes will wave his keys and volunteer. If he’s hung over he can borrow the lecture notes. He shows up in racist makeup to yet another party — forcing every other person in the venue to decide how to respond — and once again nobody stands up to him or makes a fuss. Indeed, when the record of that behaviour threatens his political career decades later, there’ll be plenty of volunteers to criticize anyone who mentions the record, rather than criticizing the guy who acted like that.
He runs for the leadership of a national political party on a platform of “I’ll tell you what I stand for after I win.” He mentions carbon pricing precisely one time at his first national leaders’ debate. He dumps his electoral-reform promise at the first hurdle, and later, when asked about it, he blames the person who asks. He gaslights Canada’s first Indigenous attorney-general for months, but he is not particularly kinder to her replacement, who is ejected from Cabinet because, I don’t know, it’s Wednesday or whatever. He lets a 72-year-old man run for re-election and only after it’s over does he let the guy know he’s getting dumped from Cabinet.
He fires the Clerk of the Privy Council by news release while travelling.
In particular, if there’s anyone in the world he might have expected to tolerate the kind of high-handedness we’re hearing about Friday’s Zoom call, it’s Chrystia Freeland. Her eagerness to endorse him in the immediate aftermath of his latest cockup has been such a reliable feature of Canadian public life it’s devolved into a kind of shtick. SNC-Lavalin, 2019: “she has absolute confidence.” Blackface, six months later: “tremendous confidence.” WE Charity, 10 months after that: “The prime minister has my complete confidence.”
Perhaps only Jagmeet Singh has shown more confidence than Freeland, over the years, in Trudeau’s leadership. Given that record — and his own much longer record of taking advantage of others’ generosity — it’s not too much of a stretch to think that at some point he decided his deputy prime minister was just another easy mark.
Turns out that’s the kind of mistake he only needed to make once.
3. Speaking of Jagmeet Singh
He’ll qualify for his pension in 70 days. After his astonishing scrum on Monday, he might as well put it on a T-shirt.
4. After Trudeau
Say he quits. What next?
Here’s something I’m starting to hear from Liberals. I don’t believe I’m the first to write about it, but it hasn’t received enough attention yet.
Can the party ensure the legitimacy of its leadership succession process?
I suspect some large number of the presumed candidates for his succession won’t run. They haven’t exactly been a bold lot so far. But assume for the sake of argument that there are four or five candidates, and none has an insurmountable advantage.
The Liberal Party transformed its leadership-selection process for the 2013 race: preferential vote among “supporters.” Supporters didn’t need any record of involvement with the party, didn’t need to pledge any support, didn’t need to pay a dime in return for voting rights. Whee! Populist rush: 300,000 people registered as supporters, 130,000 voted. Trudeau won overwhelmingly on the first ballot. Of course: he was the only candidate most people voting in the contest had ever heard of.
After a big defeat, or with such a defeat looming, figure far less than half as many people would be involved next time. Say, very generously, 40,000 supporters.
How hard would it be to rig that contest for mischievous purposes or worse? Probably not hard enough. In a vote open to every random “supporter,” it would take only a few thousand, or tens of thousands, of supporters to capture a major national political party for any cause or faction that might want one.
I traded emails with a former senior Liberal organizer about all this today. Without prompting, this veteran of many leadership contests mentioned the need to “ensure… that groups not Liberal-friendly are not organizing to disrupt the democratic process within the Party.” Those groups could include supporters of one side in the Israel-Hamas dispute. Or proxies for a hostile regime. Or pro-life or anti-MAID or anti-vaccine groups. Or practical jokers: Could the process as currently constituted block a write-in campaign for Doris Day?
This newsletter is my full-time job. Paid subscriptions at $5 a month
or $50 a year are a great way to read all my work here.
You wouldn’t believe how complicated distributing public money can get
Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 reroute facing challenge in Wisconsin
Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed
Paul Wells: Perhaps Freeland isn’t the victim here. Perhaps it’s Freeland who set Trudeau up
-
National2 days agoFreeland Resignation Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Speaks to Reporters in Ottawa
-
Business2 days agoTrudeau BLOWS through his deficit guardrail
-
illegal immigration2 days agoDelusional Rumour Driving Some Migrants in Mexico to Reach US Border
-
Business2 days ago‘There Are No Sacred Cows’: Charles Payne Predicts DOGE Will Take Bite Out Of Military Industrial Complex
-
National1 day agoAs Trudeau’s government teeters, Pierre Poilievre pushes for immediate election call
-
COVID-1923 hours agoBiden HHS extends immunity for COVID shot manufacturers through 2029
-
COVID-1913 hours agoEsteemed UK Doctor pleads with governments to cancel COVID-19 vaccines
-
Business1 day agoFiscal update reveals extent of federal government mismanagement