When it comes to dealing with facts that require a reality check, nothing bugs me more than a politician trying to make a point about an issue and blaming some other politician or political party for creating the problem, yet failing to explain to the public as to “why” the issue even exists, much less how that problem could be solved.
Such an answer today is unfortunately becoming the “norm”. Trevor Noah, an American comedian who left “The Daily Show” in 2022 to concentrate more on stand-up political commentary, recently made part of his routine this rather obvious but unrecognized “FACT”: “American politicians have done a really good job of tricking Americans into fighting about issues that were never an issue to begin with.”
To be truthful, that observation might as well be applied towards any group of politicians, including Canadians and ESPECIALLY those who link their beliefs with what are known as Alt-Right points of view. Unfortunately, they’re not the only political voices having problems finding fault with “issues”. My “experience” with “progressive leftist thinkers” is that they have this obnoxious habit of distilling “the problem” down to its most minute of possible causes; unfortunately, by the time they’ve reached their sedimentary conclusion it will have been so “cleansed” that its distillation will only find relevance to a minority of voters, and not the societal “we”.
As a result of these unsatisfying answers, we will then either ignore the election and not vote, OR listen to the 15 second clip in which our candidate will “solve the problem” and the mark our “X” appropriately come election day.
Seriously, though, wouldn’t it be better if we at least asked for further explanation, such as “How do you SPECIFICALLY plan to do that?”, or its corollary, “How much is that going to cost us? – because if we don’t at least consider these options, all we are doing is copping out of our civic duties and confirming that we neither know nor understand the very tenets upon which democracy is founded
As long as we continue to behave in this fashion during an election cycle, we’re just giving our political candidates an opportunity to retell us what we already know, namely that grocery prices are up, inflation is down, and you can’t get rid of your kid’s family living in the basement because they can’t find a home to buy or a property where the rent isn’t going to chew up over 50% of our take home pay.
You’re never going to get any satisfying answers that way; instead, all you’ll end up hearing is Pierre Poilievre repeating that it is “the fault of our last 10 years being ruled by a Liberal government”, while Scott Moe’s candidates claim that the “tax and spend NDP” actually created Grant Devine’s budgetary sinkhole or ignore the fact that the town hospital which they once declared had been “closed by the NDP” was actually mere days ago had an Emergency Room in operation, but was temporarily “closed” last weekend due to staffing fatigue.
What we have to understand is that every problem has its origin in someone failing to recognize the potential harm they’re creating by ignoring it. However, IF we don’t change the way we’re “doing business”, the only “solution” is for government to regulate its repair – and most likely at a far greater cost to society. My last two columns illustrate this problem only too well; governmental procrastination in bringing all coal-fired generating stations will result in such sites in Shand, Poplar River or Boundary Dam will have to be shut down on January 1, 2030, as they have no carbon gas capture and storage technologies working or under construction at those sites – and to remedy the situation will require the government to commit at least another $10 billion to prioritizes such renovation.
The irony is, Saskatchewan isn’t THE only political entity denying climate change realities. “FACT”: Our province is carrying a $39.8 billion deficit (possibly to go to $49 billion?); however, the American states along the eastern coastline of the U.S.A. having just weathered a climate “bomb” that dumped massive amounts of snow and freezing rain on their landscape will collectively spend MORE on cleaning their snow and ice-covered roads or repairing collapsed energy infrastructures than what our province now carries as debt – and to that add the cost of refurbishing ALL of our existing coal and natural gas-fired generating stations.
In hindsight, wouldn’t it be nice IF in 1977, when staff scientist James Black first told Exxon “that burning fossil fuels was the most likely cause of global warming”, we’d have paid attention to this announcement? Better still, why weren’t we paying attention when in 1982 that SAME research department issued a warning that “the consequences of climate change could be ‘catastrophic’”?
Unfortunately, when a corporation hears about ANY problem requiring changes in corporate structure and monies needing to be spent to resolve the issue, some shareholder living off stock portfolio returns will instead avoid spending such funds, instead demanding creation of an “advertising strategy” that will “warn” the public of potential future cost hikes to their product line adversely affecting their purchasing power. Or they hire a lobbyist who will “suggest” to our politicians than any potential legislation that addresses the problem will most likely be both “hasty” and “job killing” – as occurred in the U.S., when between 2007 and 2011, Republicans opposing the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) increased the usage of the phrase “job-killing regulations” by some 17,550%. Also “FACT”…
That, unfortunately, is the standard way in which corporations and governments interact in a so-called “democratic society” – and in today’s budgetary crisis it is the major reason as to why the Saskatchewan Party cannot produce even ONE “balanced budget”. As for its position respecting climate change and their pretending to be “the voice of rural Saskatchewan”, they’re totally ignoring reality that every farmer knows in his heart to be true: that the key to continued healthy crop production depends upon two items: decent weather AND sufficient soil moisture – and yet the government STILL considers dealing with climate change reality to be a “costly and exaggerated hoax.”
Unfortunately, we’re going to be hearing a lot more of such denialisms coming from the Sask Party, Alberta’s separatist-leaning UCP’s or the federal Conservative Party in the coming months, including the seeking of “hot button” triggers to find fault in other political sectors (Liberals at the federal level, and the NDP locally) “ignoring” questionable “realities” such as “we can’t risk losing our oil exporting market to the U.S. much less continue to resist President Trump’s tariff bombs lest we isolate our American customers.” What economic benefits will befall us should our provincial leaders AND PM Mark Carney continue to act in such an aggressive manner; didn’t Trump already tell us there’s “nothing” that Canada can give him?
Why do we keep taking Trump’s threats so seriously? Even with Trump controlling Venezuelan oil exports, Alberta’s oil exports to the U.S. aren’t in danger of diminishing, thanks to the PM Saskatchewan farmers can again look forward to exporting their crops to China, and even if the U.S. wants to get snarky during the upcoming CUSMA renegotiations, 49,000 Chinese EV autos will be swallowed up in Quebec first, and eventually across Canada faster than a helping of poutine.
The fact is, Trump needs access to the Canadian market more that we will eventually require in reciprocal trade exchange. In particular, he has repeatedly stated that Canada’s freshwater supply should be rerouted southward, as parts of California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas are turning into deserts.
Would someone like to tell me what part of these scenarios has Poilievre still convinced that he can win our next federal election by just dissing “Liberals” without telling us “how” the CPC can “fix” our current economic problems and still ignore climate change?
“I stand corrected…”
For the record, as a regular contributor to the Herald’s Op-Ed segment, I try to verify all facts as they pertain to the copy one eventually reads in the paper. However, in my Jan. 31 column, I didn’t do a good enough job editing the material, which is why I’m “confessing” to these mistakes to follow:
- Love Canal is in Niagara Falls, NY, while the Erin Brochovich movie is based on another true environmental catastrophe in Hinkley, California. The word “or” is missing in the middle of connecting the two disasters
- Halfway through the column I incorrectly referred to Madame Justice Bassett as “Barrett”, for which I apologize to her for having made this mistake;
- It isn’t the GGPPA that is forcing the shutdown of the coal plants, but the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity Regulations;
- Finally, in response to online criticism respecting Climate Justice Saskatoon lawyer Glenn Wright, his work in filing this case before King’s Bench is “pro bono”, which is in direct contradiction to allegations expressed in Mr. Brian Zinchuk in his “Pipeline Online”, as is also the case in Mr. Zinchuk’s contention that the “Saskatchewan First Act” passed “unanimously” in the Legislature.
