CHELSEA, QUE.—This summer, so many Canadians across the country have been affected by wildfires, or wildfire smoke, you’d think it might merit a show of passing concern from our federal government. Would a mention of the baleful impacts of climate change, too obvious to deny, be asking too much from an allegedly climate-aware prime minister?  

The blazing forests, mass evacuations, terrible air quality—in nearly every corner of the country—might even be considered a crisis, but it appears we are only allowed one at a time. And, yes, the trade battle with United States President Donald Trump is worrying, infuriating, time-consuming and is already hurting important industries like steel (50 per cent tariffs), aluminum (50 per cent), softwood lumber (27 per cent), autos (25 per cent) and copper (50 per cent).

There are other sectors also affected and, even though some 93 per cent of Canadian exports are protected as long as the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) survives, nothing is certain in Trump’s world, including CUSMA’s long-term prospects. Tomorrow it could be pharmaceuticals, or blueberries, or beef. Whatever gets under Trump’s skin in a given moment.

But there is an important difference between the two calamities (not that it is a competition.) There are ways to remedy or ride through the tariff crisis, and the federal government is already pursuing them in concert with most provinces. Last week, for instance, Carney announced financial support for the lumber industry on the heels of similar packages for auto-workers and steel factories, with more, no doubt, to come. 

These are Band-Aids, hopefully enough to cushion displaced workers until the economic pain for U.S. consumers becomes too great to sustain and tariffs begin to decline. The idea is to temporarily stem the bleeding as everyone waits for trade talks, arbitrarily suspended by Trump, to resume. Or—admittedly a dim hope—we wait for Trump’s eventual successor to restore some kind of economic sanity. 

Meanwhile, the federal government is vigorously pursuing new markets with Mexico, the European Union, Japan, China, and the Pacific, and also trying to direct Canadian-made steel, lumber, and other products towards the domestic “nation-building projects” that the prime minister has been promising since trade tensions started.

Of course, it will take time to find enough new buyers to compensate for the loss of the huge, wealthy, and convenient American market. The transition will be neither swift nor painless, but at least our economy will be headed in the right direction towards diversification. And Carney is right about this: this is a rich, well-educated country with abundant resources, that is well-positioned to become more economically independent.

The climate crisis, on the other hand, just keeps getting worse, the consequences more painful, costly, personal—and, arguably, more far-reaching so far than the negative impacts of tariffs—yet the national government offers no proposals to reduce the fossil-fuel emissions that are feeding it. Nor does it display any of the urgency that it brings to the trade file.

This, while people are being evacuated from homes—often more than once—watching their property, farms, and businesses destroyed in voracious, out-of-control fires. North America’s worse fire season was 2023, when some 250,000 Canadians were forced to leave their homes. This summer is promising to be just as bad, with fires threatening communities from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland, while the Prairies are still under threat. 

Last week, Toronto registered the unhealthiest air of any major global city. In Montreal, Ottawa, and surrounding communities, thick haze made outdoor activity hazardous. Countless family camping trips, weeks at the cottage, softball or soccer games, bike races—the usual joys of summer—have been clouded with concerns about the health impacts of exposure to particulate matter. 

Yes, the prime minister has occasionally acknowledged the wildfires (they are pretty hard to avoid), but only in the context of co-ordinating or improving international fire-fighting efforts. And his government dispatched the military to help fight the flames in Manitoba. 

But the words “climate change” have barely passed Carney’s lips, nor did they feature in communiqués from June’s G7 summit in Alberta (where the fires were already hard to ignore.) It has been left to premiers, mayors, and Indigenous leaders to hold press conferences, comfort evacuees, and highlight the frightening reality of more intense, more widespread, more merciless fires. There has been little sign of federal environment minister Julie Dabrusin, or her government’s promised climate change mitigation policies. (In fact, EV sales have tanked with the end of the federal rebate program, and some provinces are actually waging war against bike lanes!)

Carney, of course, understands the cost of inaction on climate change—or he did in his previous careers. So do many of his cabinet ministers. Where are they? Why aren’t they proposing that Canada move into the vacuum left by Trump’s environmental backsliding, by developing, marketing, and exporting Canadian-made green technologies? Why not give priority to expanded electric grids, affordable heat pumps, revamped building codes, and electrification of transit rather than another oil pipeline?

Ironically, the blunt-speaking U.S. ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, last week acknowledged the “immense hardship” wildfires are causing Canadians, and the resulting “poor air quality” in Ottawa and across Canada and the U.S., calling the situation a “stark reminder of the shared challenge we face.” 

No mention of climate change, but a different tone from that of the six Republican lawmakers who last month blamed Canadian wildfire smoke for ruining family holidays in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and cited “poor decisions” by our government. 

It could be that Carney is trying not to provoke Trump, particularly with so many jobs on the line. The trigger-happy American president’s environmental vision consists of hostility to windmills, paper straws, low-pressure shower heads and EVs. Trump is a fool, but a dangerous one. In dismantling much of his country’s environmental regulatory framework, he is daring other Western leaders not to oppose him.

Canadian politicians who never wanted to transition from oil and gas to cleaner energy—Pierre Poilievre, Danielle Smith, Scott Moe, and Doug Ford, among others—are using Trump’s retreat as an excuse to undermine or slow-walk the previous Trudeau government’s fitful efforts to reduce emissions. Our exporters will be disadvantaged, they claim, if we have to meet environmental requirements their American competitors can ignore. So, if Trump decides to let methane emissions continue unabated, why shouldn’t we?

Why? Because methane is the most powerful greenhouse gas, and the technology to contain it is relatively inexpensive. 

Securing some kind of trade peace with Trump is obviously an abiding pre-occupation for the prime minister and his cabinet. Perhaps low-bridging the climate crisis is also reaction to Trudeau’s theatrical displays of concern, often followed by limp and belated remedies.

Or, maybe the prime minister is overlooking the crisis under all our noses because he can. No other national federal party, and precious few MPs, are communicating distress. What the moment needs is a Charlie Angus-style popular uprising, led by a charismatic climate champion, to rally public support for an end to our dependence on fossil fuels, since our elected leaders are missing in action. 

Meanwhile, there is a fire alarm blaring and everyone can hear it—except, apparently, denizens of the air-conditioned offices on Parliament Hill.

Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist who writes regularly for The Hill Times.

The Hill Times

 

See all stories BY SUSAN RILEY