Opinions on government policy are only as good as the information backing them up
Posted December 15, 2023
Opinion writers can only be effective if we have reliable and easy access to the necessary information. Whether the article is about taxes, climate change, health, or housing, your scribe strives to base his opinions on the relevant facts. Finding them takes time.
Not being an expert in any of these areas, it often takes a while to ask the right questions, and to find the appropriate source for answers. For each governmental department a media contact helps journalists find the relevant documents, or arranges an interview with the appropriate subject matter expert.
Under the Tim Houston government this has been a good experience. The contacts provide prompt and relevant replies and patiently respond to follow-ups, some of which turn out to be less relevant than expected. The same was true for the Liberal government under Stephen McNeil.
Unfortunately, Darrel Dexter’s NDP government was more elusive. There was periodic interference by political operatives, resulting in replies that often lacked substantive answers to straightforward questions. Sometimes they sought to deny verifiable facts.
The Trudeau government’s responses have sometimes been unreliable. The reply to an enquiry about carbon taxes was a disgrace. The government was touting the proposition that four out of five Canadians would get more in the Climate Action Incentive Payments than the carbon tax cost them. For that assertion to be true they would need to include all the ways that the tax affects taxpayers, not just gasoline.
On September 6th I asked whether there was relief from the carbon tax for buildings and vehicles owned by municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals, and other provincial departments. In the absence of relief there will be substantial increases in tuitions, and taxes needed by municipal and provincial governments.
A series of replies promising answers concluded on September 11th with, “I’ll share our response as soon as available.” Nothing arrived.
When I brought it to their attention on November 22nd the response strained credulity: “Apologies, I understood that someone reached out to you…”
The simple answer to the simple original question was, “No, none of them were exempt.” The logical interpretation of the delay is that they didn’t want to admit it.
It also became clear that carbon taxes on home heating — whether fuel oil, natural gas, or coal burned by Nova Scotia Power — were not offset by incentive payments. These significant burdens show that the carbon tax regime hurts all taxpayers and contributes to inflationary pressures.
But we are assured by the responding finance official that it is OK because “the price on pollution is revenue neutral as the federal government does return the proceeds to Canadians,” by which they mean the costs of government programs. In other words, we should be happy with our tax burden because they manage to spend it all.
Many economists argue that a tax on carbon is an effective way to reduce emissions. So it can be, at least where people have options, but the concept has been poisoned in the minds of Canadians by the government’s deceitful explanations.
The consequence has been a miserable fall for Liberal MP’s, especially in Atlantic Canada, where home fuel oil is an important source for home heating. Party discipline fell apart and the MP’s let it be known that they were unhappy with the tax story. In late October, Trudeau pulled the tax on home heating oil but not other fuels, enraging Canadians in other provinces where natural gas is a prominent source.
The broader and more lasting damage is to the Liberals’ credibility. People who were skeptical about the adequacy of the Climate Action Incentive Payments have had their worst suspicions confirmed. Hence the federal Liberals’ freefall in the polls.
Comments from readers on articles have been mostly positive this year. When they were critical they were usually justified. For example, when the school support workers in Halifax went on strike last spring, many affected parents also protested. One such parent disputed my implication that they were tools of the union rather than independent actors.
Other readers provided congratulations for the detailed facts backing up opinions. That information would not be there without the assistance of media contacts.
Thanks to all readers, both those happy with the content and those who question the ideas or the way they are expressed.
To the provincial media contacts that I have worked with over the years, thank you for being pleasant and efficient in helping me to understand your files. I look forward to contacting you in 2024.
Despite the challenges in our communities, all of us should be grateful to live in a beautiful place where a peaceful life can be taken for granted. And we give thanks for the efforts of all those who support the needs of people who are homeless and hungry.
Happy Holidays.
Related Articles
Who Represents You- Trudeau insists that he is staying on. Poilievre is delighted. August 16, 2024
- Premier Houston is changing his style, unfortunately August 2, 2024
- Justin, the byelection disaster is about you June 28, 2024