The announcement of the Bay du Nord project by the Trudeau government is causing real unease, particularly after the conclusions of the latest report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
There is something deeply frustrating for the country’s progressive electorate that sees a party that is supposed to oppose the staunchly pro-oil policies of the conservative movement, but change course or play a tightrope when the decision time.
The discomfort was evident in Minister Guilbeault during the interviews he gave. The poor man was unable to answer when asked if he, personally — as a former environmentalist — would have made the same decision. The attempt to evade the question is an answer in itself. We doubt that he would have made this decision, because the project still moves us away from the environmental targets announced barely a week ago.
The excuse given: “You have to represent the interests of ALL Canadians. That’s all well and good, ministerial solidarity, but when a compromise goes against the commitments of one’s own government and that it disguises the protection responsibilities incumbent on the Ministry of the Environment, that’s another story.
Have you often seen a Minister of Finance put so much water in his wine to take into account the interests of other ministries? Do conservatives try so hard to please progressives when elected? Should President Biden make concessions to the Trumpists during his term? Do you think Trump would do the same during his?
The general impression of many citizens and the strong trend that we observe is that the economy prevails over the environment, regardless of the government in place in Canada. However, economic choices and respect for the environment do not have to be opposed, they can cohabit in projects beneficial to both. This is the essence of the IPCC recommendations: stop investing or authorizing projects without taking into account negative externalities.
The unfortunate decision regarding the Bay du Nord project is an example of what needs to be stopped. To hell with the independent experts of the IPCC and their recommendations, we are playing short-term politics. Too bad if consistency is not there, you have to make sure you are re-elected. This electoral logic is problematic for progressivism in general. Every four years, the progressive electorate must face the same dilemma: let the conservatives win, who do not even hide to say that we must privilege the economy at the expense of the environment or vote for the liberals for… why? exactly ? ‘Cause they’ll at least make us a handsome show smoke?
The reality is that they make similar decisions, simply more diluted or better disguised. Progressives lose or lose less, but rarely win. One step forward, two steps back, and so goes the waltz!
We then wonder why the population is politically disengaged and disillusioned with politicians. This whole story raises an important observation: currently, and for too long, the environment and the social are at the service of the economy, whereas fundamentally it is the economy that should be at the service of the social, within the limits imposed by the environment. In short, the economy should serve to maximize welfare, not to maximize profits.
This paradigm could guide each of our collective decisions. Growth at all costs has no place in 2022. Mr. Guilbeault, remember why you made the leap into politics. Was it to play the game or to change the rules of the game?