THE TOXIC CARBON TAX DEBATE.
There has been a lack of rhetorical spine in Canadian politics of late. With trade agreements, pipelines and illegal migration debates relatively dormant for now, the political conversation has been a bit like the pudding Winston Churchill rejected because “it has no theme.”
The discussion in the House of Commons is aimless and MPs are only roused from their slumber when the subject of the carbon tax is raised.
It’s curious why it invokes such passion. This time last year the average price of gas in Canada was around 11¢ per litre cheaper than it is now. The increase envisaged under the Liberal government’s carbon pricing plan is about 11.5¢ per litre over the next five years — and that’s before any tax rebates are paid to voters in those provinces where the federal backstop will kick in (Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Manitoba).
But rational debate over the most cost-effective way to lower carbon emissions has descended into a tribal brawl over values. Conservative leader Andrew Scheer was in Toronto Tuesday, where he met Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who has been at the forefront of the fight against carbon pricing. The two make strange bedfellows — the cautious and ungainly federal leader and the brash and robust premier. But they believe they have backed a political winner in opposing the carbon tax. In a joint statement, they said they agreed it would do nothing to reduce global emissions, while making home heating and gasoline more expensive.
Ford has put the cost at $649 per Ontarian — much higher than the Liberal government’s estimate of $244 per household next year, rising to $564 in 2022. The premier’s cost estimate also ignored Ottawa’s pledge to rebate $300 per household next year, rising to $697 in 2022.
Both federal and provincial Conservatives have expressed skepticism about consumers emerging better off from a carbon tax.
But voters may be less incredulous when they see the benefit in their tax returns next spring. The Liberals claim 70 per cent of families will emerge better off. Trudeau signalled his comfort level in campaigning on the incentive package he unveiled last week, when he spoke to a group of high school students at the National Gallery on Monday, claiming critics of the carbon tax want to “make pollution free again” — neatly employing coded language to evoke impressions of Donald Trump’s “make America great again” slogan. The Liberals will try to make the election a litmus test on the parties’ respective environmental plans — a battle polls suggest they are winning currently, even among some Conservatives, if only because their opponents have no plans.
The debate in the House Tuesday suggested the rhetoric is likely to get even more barbed. Dominic LeBlanc, the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, outlined the shape of things to come in Question Period, saying Scheer was in Toronto “to get his marching orders from Doug Ford on Stephen Harper’s failed agenda — 10 years of doing nothing”. If there is a ballot question 12 months out from the next general election, to tax carbon or not to tax carbon is it. The Conservatives have been asking some intelligent questions in the House. On Monday, Sean Fraser, parliamentary secretary to the Environment Minister, admitted big industrial emitters in “trade exposed industries” will avoid paying a carbon price on a per tonne basis because “we could potentially have jobs leave and it will do nothing for emissions.”
Pierre Poilievre leapt on the gaffe. “That is exactly what we have been saying about the carbon tax all along,” he said, as he called for small businesses to be similarly exempt.
There is an apparent lack of fairness in the plan. While the government’s “output-based pricing system” does not completely exempt big emitters — businesses pay if they emit more than the generous cap imposed by government and earn credits if they emit less. But they will certainly not pay at the same level proportionately as the small Saskatchewan trucking company tracked down by The Canadian Press, which will see its diesel costs increase by more than $500,000 a year when the pricing plan is fully implemented. The government has earmarked $1.5 billion to help small and mediumsized businesses adjust over the next five years but it’s clear they are the losers in this scenario, since their tax remittances will be used to help rebate consumers. But these are details.
The carbon tax is really a proxy for polarized visions of how the country should be governed. The Conservatives believe the Liberals are putting the special interests of the privileged few ahead of the wider interests of the average voter.
The Liberals discount any opinion that dissents from their own — namely, that putting a price on carbon will protect the environment and grow the economy. “We relish the fight because we’re being honest and they’re not,” said one senior Liberal.
After a decade or more scrapping over a price on carbon, the next election should finally resolve the issue. But our politicians have done us a disservice with their use of such searing rhetoric. If Conservative leaders don’t believe in climate change and, consequently, intend to do nothing, they should say so and let the electoral chips fall where they may. If they do believe in it, they should produce a plan on how they will combat it.
For their part, the Liberals have undermined the case for action by being typically sanctimonious, demonizing their opponents as uninformed and irresponsible. Fighting climate change by raising the price of gas 11¢ over the next five years should be something all but the modest ardent of skeptics could get behind.
But with both sides presenting climate pricing as an existential threat to their worldview, it is going to take a general election to settle it.