Saturday, December 10, 2016
From Campbell Clark's Globe report on Mr. Trudeau's climate change summit thingy:
...The climate-change summit with the premiers was to mark the culmination of Mr. Trudeau’s first full year of prime ministership, sealing it with a pan-Canadian deal on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. It’s a big deal. Unprecedented. The PM’s aides had so-called stakeholders, such as environmental groups, lined up to praise the agreement. And Mr. Trudeau was expecting to take a bow at 5:30 p.m.
Then Ms. Clark stole the limelight. She is months away from an election, and was arguing the deal was unfair to B.C. She claimed her province’s $30-a-tonne carbon tax is twice as costly as the cap-and-trade price that Ontarians and Quebeckers will pay. And B.C., she said, wouldn’t sign on to a deal that would raise carbon taxes to $50 in 2022 – as Mr. Trudeau insists – unless all provinces will pay the same...
Which is bad enough, right?
But then there is the following, noted by the reporter/not columnist Mr. Campbell and his editor(s):
...(Clark's) claim that B.C’s carbon price would be double Ontario’s was exaggerated, and angry federal Liberals claimed it was trotted out at the last minute so Ms. Clark could play to the small-c conservatives whose support she needs in next May’s election. Her performance upset the Trudeau government’s careful staging.
In the end, the differences were covered over in a deal to have an independent study of whether B.C.’s carbon tax is equivalent to Ontario and Quebec’s cap-and-trade system, to be done by 2020 – after the first ministers’ re-election campaigns. The compromise also includes language that B.C. could “determine its own path” to reducing its emissions after 2022 based on the results – so Ms. Clark claimed she won’t have to raise carbon taxes unless other provinces face the same burden.
Ms. Clark had made her point. Her threat to hold up the deal allowed her to stand up on camera and say she fought for her province to get a fair deal...
And, given all that, how will the local puffed-up proMedia punditry (for whom the play was designed) respond?
Assuming he didn't phone it in Thursday, I reckon we might get a preview of that response in Mikey-Mike's column tomorrow.
Posted by RossK at Saturday, December 10, 2016