Article content continued

The leaders of the three northern territories put their names to the document, but issued a joint declaration opposing a tax. “I believe a carbon tax would have a negative impact on quality of life in the North. Canada’s climate change goals must be conducted in a way that does not significantly impact northern costs of living, undermine food security or threaten emerging economies,” said Yukon Premier Darrell Pasloski.

Any document can attract signatures if it’s vague and undemanding enough.

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark perhaps came closest to acknowledging the reality, noting that the carbon declaration “can be interpreted pretty broadly.” In other words, the provinces can each continue following their individual paths, as before.

It is clear that Canada’s economic well-being and trade prospects rely, at least in part, on being able to show we have a credible plan to reduce carbon emissions, and a national framework is economically preferable to a patchwork of overlapping sub-national plans.

The devil will be in the details, of course, and it is apparent we will be considering the details for some time yet. What was announced this week was less a national carbon-pricing framework than an agreement to get together later and talk some more. Yes, complicated deals require careful study and negotiation, but even agreements in principle must agree to some principles.

That does not appear to be what we have. Stephen McNeil of Nova Scotia worried about driving up hydro costs in his province. Alberta’s Rachel Notley seemed fine with a national carbon price, so long as there was also national support for pipeline infrastructure. Alberta also indicated it won’t be buying any additional hydro power from British Columbia until it gets a friendlier reception on the pipeline front.