Canada - the road ahead

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East With Fall upon us and a new federal government sworn-in in Ottawa, Canadians have been set up for the road ahead. With inflation at a record high and the pandemic still lingering in the background, are we all set to face winter with the usual winter blues? Let's take a look at the instruments of survival put in place for us by the newly elected government. It looks like we have a lot of new and inexperience people in ministerial portfolios. This is not the relevant news, however, because we should be used to unqualified people running ministries by now. The bad news is that people with a record of openly opposing Canada's resource based wealth are now in charge. This does not bode well for an optimistic future. Steven Guilbeault, who was one of Quebec's most prominent environmentalists before entering politics, is now in charge of Environment and Climate Change Canada. He can be expected to bring an unusually activist perspective to a ministry that, among other key responsibilities, will soon be tasked with making good on the Liberals' campaign promise to impose greenhouse gas emissions caps on the oil and gas sector. Jonathan Wilkinson, who has a history of more than 20 years of promoting green technologies, has been shifted to Natural Resources, the department primarily responsible for relations with fossil fuel producers. He is clearly being sent there to make changes in a department that has been relatively deferential in that relationship, and has slow-rolled the many components of the Liberals' climate agenda for which it is responsible. The Natural Resources shake-up, in particular, is a bold and probably necessary move if the government is to have much chance of meeting its new commitment to a 40-per-cent reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. And Mr. Guilbeault's new role in the Environment Portfolio will be well received at COP26, the two-week United Nations climate summit bash set to begin in Glasgow in just a few days. As a result, we can expect new and rapid increases in gas prices both at the pump and at home. But never mind, this government continues to print money. However, it occurred to me, that all this green financing might be a new way of recycling dirty money; this time generated by clean energy projects and climate change excuses. Just look at the facts and consider… A recent report commissioned by the United Kingdom (host of COP26 in Glasgow Scotland) and prepared by then Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson (our current Minister of Natural Resources) and his German counterpart, Jochen Flasbarth, documents the progress richer countries have made to date in financially supporting less affluent countries with climate change mitigation efforts. It notes that the 2009 goal to deliver $100 billion US a year in support by 2020 was almost certainly not met and more aggressive action is needed over the next half-decade to spur change. The $100 billion annual commitment was first made more than a decade ago at COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark, based on the recognition that the developed world is largely responsible for producing climate change-causing emissions that have now disproportionately affected poorer countries. What developed nations are bringing to the table is not nothing: an OECD report in July estimated that the richest countries contributed $79.6 billion in 2019 to support climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts in lower-income countries. And Wilkinson and Flasbarth's report estimates that the annual total will reach $100 billion in 2022 or 2023. But that's not what those countries promised in 2009 when they set the goal of reaching $100 billion in annual funding by 2020. Affluent nations obviously have the desire to help poorer countries mitigate climate change, while developing nations, are being asked to forgo some of the high-polluting activities (such as using coal for power generation) that helped developed nations get rich in the first place. So for the sake of fighting climate change and reducing global instability, the wealthiest nations have both a moral and a practical stake in the developing world's mitigation and adaptation efforts as many pundits contend. In November 2015, just three weeks after being sworn in as prime minister, Justin Trudeau went to Paris and announced a commitment of $2.65 billion over five years for developing nations. That promise still fell short of what some groups consider Canada's "fair share." But this past June, Trudeau announced that commitment would double to $5.3 billion over the next five years. The report also states that developed nations were far too optimistic about the role of private finance when they released a "roadmap" for reaching the $100 billion goal in 2016. At the time, it was suggested that private funds contributing to the cost of fighting climate change would account for $33 billion annually by 2020. However according to the OECD report, private sources only provided $14 billion in 2019. With all this money spent, mostly by the taxpayers of the developed world (including $5.3 billion by Canada) the question is, where did it all go and how was it spent? We have people howling for more money for climate change projects but it seems to me that no accountability exists. In this situation it might serve us to remember that Al Capone was also a great contributor to charities. As all these billions of dollars seem to be going down some bottomless pit, apparently without anyone knowing where, or how it is used, might it not be time for spenders to beware? Is the time not ripe to find an Environmental Eliot Ness who will identify the culprits and hold them to account? Best of luck.