Connect with us

National

Trudeau gov’t considered using term ‘heat-flation’ to link rising costs with ‘climate change’

Published

1 year ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Recently revealed documents show that members of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet were looking to associate rising inflation in Canada with “climate change” by using the term “heat-flation,” but abandoned the idea after negative feedback from polls.

The documents show that Trudeau’s own Privy Council Office in an April 24 report said it had commissioned its own “in-house” research on the “concepts of ‘climate-flation’ and ‘heat-flation’” to see Canadians take on the terms.  

Predictably, the bid to try and convince Canadians that the rising costs of living was the result of so-called “climate change” did not go over well with those polled as nobody had even heard of the term “heat-flation.”  

The information regarding the poll was gleaned from a report titled Continuous Qualitative Data Collection Of Canadians’ Views, as noted by Blacklock’s Reporter,  and asked if Canadians had heard of these “terms before” with “none indicated they had.” 

“Describing what they believed these terms referred to, many expected they were likely connected to the issue of climate change and rising economic costs of its effect as well as efforts to mitigate its impacts going forward,” noted the report. 

“To clarify, participants were informed ‘heat-flation’ is when extreme heat caused by climate change makes food and other items more expensive, and that ‘climate-flation’ was a broader term that encompassed all of the ways in which climate change can cause prices to go up including but not limited to extreme heat.” 

The report noted that while some of the people polled thought “climate change” might have had some effect on inflation, many other issues were seen as the cause.  

The report noted that “All believed climate change was having at least some impact on the price of food” but not in the way the government narrative asserts. 

The report found that some Canadians “felt that in addition to extreme heat and drought making it more difficult for farmers to protect their crops and livestock, extreme weather events could also cause damage to vital roadways and infrastructure making it more difficult to transport food products across the country. A few also expressed that in addition to impacting Canadian food production climate change could also make it more expensive to import food.” 

Of note is that no Canadian government has balanced the budget since 2007, and many critics have pointed to this ever-increasing debt-load to the reason inflation has rocked the country.   

When it came to the carbon tax, many expressed the view that the “carbon pricing system had served to further increase the rate of inflation.”

Whether its inflation, the carbon tax or other factors, it remains true that Canada’s poverty rate is on the rise.   

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a July survey found that nearly half of Canadians are just $200 away from financial ruin as the costs of housing, food and other necessities has gone up massively since Trudeau took power in 2015.

Critics argue that instead of addressing these issues, the Trudeau government has instead used the “climate change” agenda to justify applying a punitive carbon tax on Canadians.

However, polls indicate that most Canadians are not as concerned with “climate change” as they are with other issues, and many do not buy into the alarmist government narrative. Many critics have also accused government officials of being hypocrites, as they punish Canadians via the carbon tax and other measures while themselves taking advantage of frequent flights at the expense of taxpayers.

Despite the rising unpopularity of such policies, the Trudeau government has continued to push a radical environmental agenda similar to those endorsed by globalist groups like the World Economic Forum and the United Nations.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Energy / 2 hours ago

‘The electric story is over’

Business / 3 hours ago

Some Of The Wackiest Things Featured In Rand Paul’s New Report Alleging $1,639,135,969,608 In Gov’t Waste

Alberta / 9 hours ago

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Energy

‘The electric story is over’

Published on December 24, 2025

By

From Resource Works

By Stewart Muir

Oil economist Dr. Anas F. Alhajji challenges assumptions about EVs, demand and Canada’s future.

Every episode of Power Struggle offers a different doorway into the global energy system. But every so often I speak with someone who doesn’t merely interpret the data — he dismantles the illusions around it. Energy economist Dr. Anas F. Alhajji is one of those rare voices.

For anyone who follows world oil markets, Anas requires little introduction. He is one of the most widely referenced analysts in global energy economics, managing partner at Energy Outlook Advisors, and a commentator whose views often diverge from the political narratives that dominate Western media. Our conversation, fast-paced and data-driven, reinforced a point I’ve been making for years: many assumptions about the energy transition are overdue for a hard reset.

And if you think the transition is unfolding as advertised, Anas has a simple message: look again.

Peak oil demand — or peak illusion?

We began with the recurring claim, made most notably by the International Energy Agency, that global oil demand is nearing a terminal peak. Anas has long challenged this analysis, but his breakdown was especially stark.

“In May 2025, they said they are revising up global oil demand… They’ve been wrong for 18 straight years. By how much? Two or three years. The total is about 350 million barrels.”

He added an even sharper example.

“In August, they revised up Mexico’s oil demand by a hundred thousand barrels a day — since 2020. With all of this, who is going to believe the IEA?”

If we are going to debate “peak oil demand,” Anas argued, we must start with accurate numbers. And reality, as he laid out, tells a very different story.

Oil demand is higher — not lower

The most striking fact he brought to the table was where global demand sits today.

“Current world demand for oil is 107 million barrels a day.”

That figure sits eight million barrels above 2019 levels, despite rapid growth in electric vehicle sales. And here is where the assumptions collide with the data.

“Right now we have about 55 million EVs… 35 million are in China. The replacement in terms of oil is only 1.3 million barrels a day. That’s it.”

EVs are increasing, yes — but the global vehicle fleet is expanding even faster, and so is mobility demand. A century’s worth of built energy systems does not pivot overnight.

Hybrids now dominate

This brought Anas to the point that may surprise the most people.

“The trend right now is very clear. We are going hybrid. Hybrid. The electric story is over.”

He emphasized that this is not ideological — it is practical. Hybrids outperform EVs on cost, convenience and grid impacts, and consumers are voting with their wallets.

“Hybrid sales have been going through the roof. And this is going to continue… The media reports EV sales all the time. But what matters is the number of EVs on the road.”

This distinction matters. Monthly sales data can create a false sense of momentum. What counts for emissions, infrastructure planning and oil displacement is the stock of vehicles actually in use.

Three ‘scams’ in EV sales reporting

Anas went further, arguing that even sales data does not always reflect real-world adoption. He described what he called three “scams” that inflate EV sales figures globally. He shared one example on air:

“There are many tens of thousands of them in parking lots that are not being sold… A manufacturer calls an official, says: I have 2,000 cars. I will sell them to you. You issue the license plates, you issue the insurance, you get all the subsidies, we split it. But the cars are still in the parking lot.”

On paper, these are “sales.” In reality, they are inventory.

The broader point is that EV market statistics need scrutiny — and policymakers who rely on headline numbers may be basing major decisions on flawed data.

Why Canada still needs another pipeline

We then turned to Canada’s current debates about pipelines and whether the country still needs more tidewater access. Anas answered without hesitation.

“I can tell you without any reservation, we do need another pipeline, another Canadian pipeline to tidewater.”

His rationale was blunt.

“Energy demand globally is increasing at a very high rate in a way that we have never seen before.”

For Canada, this is about competitiveness. Without access to global markets, Canadian oil is priced at a discount — a problem solved only by pipelines reaching the coast.

On LNG: “Canada should go at full speed”

Anas was even more emphatic when discussing natural gas.

“That’s where Canada basically should go at full speed.”

He criticized the idea of a long-term LNG surplus.

“All those ideas about a surplus in LNG… it is nonsense.”

Asian LNG demand is projected to grow sharply, and Canada’s low-emissions LNG — powered by hydro — gives the country a unique competitive advantage.

Why voices like Anas matter

What I value most about conversations like this is the grounding they give us. In energy, narratives and evidence are drifting apart. You may not agree with every assertion, but you can’t dismiss the data. Whether discussing EVs, oil demand, LNG or Canada’s infrastructure, Anas reminds us that aspirations only matter when they intersect with reality.

This episode of Power Struggle is exactly the kind of dialogue we need: sober, data-based, and challenging enough to re-examine assumptions.

You can listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts. If it unsettles a few comfortable stories — that’s the point.

Watch the video on Power Struggle 

Power Struggle on social media:

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Alberta

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Published on December 23, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.

For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.

While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.

And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.

At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.

The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.

While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.

While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.

Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.

Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.

The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.

Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.

These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.

So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.

Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.

Continue Reading

Trending

X