Rhymes but no reason
New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs was due to speak at a federal government standing committee Thursday, March 28, on what he described as the “disastrous impact” Ottawa’s carbon pricing increase will have on his constituents.
The adjustment to the carbon tax comes into effect on April 1 and will see the $65-per-tonne penalty increase to $80 per tonne.
Opponents such as Higgs and federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre have been ramping up the rhetoric in recent weeks, calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “axe the tax,” and saying Canadians cannot afford a 23 per cent increase in the carbon tax on fuel.
OPPOSE TAX
As the country sits mired in an affordability crisis, this message is easy to understand. None of us wants to pay more for anything right now. In a recent Leger poll commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, more than 69 per cent of Canadians say they oppose the April 1 increase. That percentage rises to 75 per cent for rural residents.
For his part, Trudeau does not have a rhyming retort and has to painfully explain that the carbon pricing amounts to pennies on a tank of gas for most consumers, and Canadians with the lowest incomes are getting that money back — and more — in federal rebate cheques.
In a March 26 letter to Higgs, Nova Scotia’s Tim Houston and other premiers who have come out against carbon pricing, Trudeau wrote, “… eight out of 10 families get more money back than they pay — with low- and middle-income households benefitting the most.”
ECONOMISTS AGREE
Trudeau also insists this plan is the best one to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the face of climate change. Canadian experts agree.
More than 100 economists signed an open letter March 26 stating carbon pricing is an effective way, and the least costly way, to meet emissions targets.
“Other methods, such as direct regulations, tend to be more intrusive and inflexible, and cost more,” the economists wrote.
Speaking of other methods, we have not heard any solutions from the “axe the tax” crowd.
During debate around a non-confidence vote on the issue on March 21, Green party co-leader Elizabeth May tried to bring the hyperbole back to the matter at hand, asking, “Could we ever have a serious discussion in this place about the actual climate crisis?”
REAL DISASTERS
That is what is getting lost in the handwringing and finger-pointing over whether people can afford what amounts to a .033 difference in the federal fuel surcharge on gasoline for Atlantic Canadians.
If there are alternatives to the carbon tax to effectively address climate change, we are open to hearing them and the federal government should be open to exploring them.
What we can’t afford are more frequent and more catastrophic weather events like this region has seen in recent months and years in the form of forest fires, floods and tropical storms.
As for Higgs’ reference to the “disastrous impact” of a carbon tax, he may be forgetting the risk of doing nothing to address the real threat of a changing climate.