“…..Pierre Poilievre’s recent remarks that the tax, when fully implemented, would lead to a “nuclear winter” of “mass hunger and malnutrition,” a dystopian nightmare in which seniors are forced to turn their thermostats down to 13 C and people are left unable “to leave their homes or drive anywhere,” could have been reported straight-up, and not as lunatic hyperbole, wholly unworthy of a supposed prime-minister-in-waiting.” (Andrew Coyne, Globe and Mail – Sept 20,2024)
By Ray Rivers
September 29th, 2024
BURLINGTON, ON
For over a year now Mr. Poilievre has been ranting on and outright lying about carbon pricing. Ignoring the economic benefit of the climate rebate is not an accidental omission; dare I say, it’s a Trump-like strategy. Poilievre, like the US former president, clearly believes that if your repeat a lie often enough and loud enough people will believe it. And looking at the polls it seems to be doing just that.
I had a phone call earlier in the week from a Tory campaigner whose first utterance was that I should support Mr. Poilievre because as prime minister he will axe the tax. I politely pointed out that I drive an electric car and that carbon credit deposit the government sends to my bank account each quarter helps to pay it off. That is why we have carbon pricing right?
Mr. Coyne states it clearly. ”….not only is the carbon tax more efficient than alternatives, but it is also more fair. Indeed, if we are so foolish as to scrap it, having already gone to the trouble and expense of implementing it, most households will be made worse off, since they lose more by eliminating the rebate than they gain from eliminating the tax”.
Pierre Poilievre Graphic taken from the Walrus magazine
This is not the first time Mr. Poilievre (PP) has got simple economics wrong. He swore up and down that the real reason for the spike in prices immediately following the pandemic had to do with the size of the federal deficit and debt, rather than supply issues, price gouging or pent-up demand. In fact both the deficit and the debt have continued their path since then, but inflation has dramatically dropped from a high of 8% to a near normal 2% today. Had PP been PM and cut program spending as he demanded Trudeau to do, that would have just led to higher unemployment and lower growth.
Carbon pricing is one of the tools which Canada is hoping will help us meet our legally binding emissions reduction targets that we agreed to in the Paris Climate Agreement. And, yes Mr. Poilievre, there are opportunities to cut federal spending which would also help us meet those Paris carbon targets. Ottawa could once and for all stop subsidizing the oil and gas companies responsible for global warming.
Renewable energy –
Of course that would not please the significant base of anti-Liberal voters in petroleum rich Alberta and Saskatchewan. But it would be the right move, even for them, from a longer term perspective. And on the provincial front, one has to wonder why Ontario’s Mr. Ford is pushing pricey natural gas powered electricity production when the lowest cost sources of electricity anywhere today, according to a recent UN report, is renewable energy.
Speaking of Mr. Ford, it’s worth noting that not all Tories have the same passion we hear from PP when it comes to controlling the budget. The normally Tory friendly Fraser Institute has continued it’s ongoing criticism of Mr. Ford’s government, calling out Mr. Ford’s as one of the highest spending governments in the province’s history. “At every turn the Ford government has demonstrated that it’s an irresponsible steward of Ontario’s finances. The official 2023/24 spending numbers are simply the latest example.”
There is good reason why Ford has ticked off the Fraser stalwarts. Mr Ford is consumed by costly, almost psychedelic, pipe dreams. Needlessly tearing down and then rebuilding the Science Centre is an example. Another is the construction of his 413 superhighway, which is not yet even costed and promises to benefit only a handful of commuters and some friendly land developers. The latest brain burp takes the icing on the cake, however – a 50 km tunnel under the busiest highway in Canada – the 401.
Premier Doug Ford and his Minister of Finance strutting into the Legislature with the budget document in hand
Oh, then there is the economically reckless and self-serving corner store beer-gate. The opposition parties estimate it might end up costing a billion dollars to break the contract with the Beer Store just so Ford can say he’s put booze in corner stores before an expected provincial election this coming spring.
That contract would have expired next year anyway – and without penalty. Besides, it is difficult to understand why Ford, a non-drinker, would be so anxious to expand alcohol consumption given what we know about alcohol use and cancer.
I briefly made an appearance at the Ontario Liberal annual meeting in London last weekend where over a thousand people came together to discuss policy.
Former federal health minster Jane Philpott who presented her vision of primary health reform for Ontario was a keynote speaker. I also attended the session on economics and was impressed with Liberal finance critic Stephanie Bowman, a former accountant and banker, who chaired a session with some very talented panelists.
Ontario Liberal leader Bonnie Crombie
It’s clear that the provincial Liberals will be focusing their next campaign on economic growth and tax policy, with the middle class most clearly in their sights. But let’s not fool ourselves. That is no guarantee that the provincial Liberals won’t also be called out by the Fraser folks should they form the next government and run deficits.
Still, should they win, we can hope that Premier Crombie would be less consumed by the kind of pie-in-the-sky fantasies that has Mr. Ford frothing at the mouth.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Carbon Pricing Andrew Coyne Renewable Energy Federal Subsidies Fraser Institute
Driving Down the Wrong Road Ford’s Billion Dollar Booze Up Alcohol and Cancer Liberal Finance Critic
Recent polls suggest that the Liberals trail even the NDP nationally outside of Quebec where the Bloc Quebecois are at all time support levels.
Even the NDP have stopped supporting the unsellable carbon tax in favour of unknown policies.
The Bloc in proposing increasing the OAS 10% for those of us between 65 and 74. This brilliant strategy is diametrically opposed to the last five months of Trudeau campaigning on generational fairness and opens up the only demographic the Liberals still hold a small lead in to attack. Youth have already decided.
This will not influence myself but most assuredly will shift some senior votes if the Liberals do not get on that bandwagon. If they do what will young Canadians think?
Get over it. Egomaniac Trudeau has finally and materially sunk the Liberal Party almost to oblivion. At this point even if he steps aside and they prorogue parliament it will be virtually impossible to reverse the thirst for change.
New scandals arrive every day for this tired, broken caretaker government intent on staying the course.
Historians will not be kind to this outgoing Prime Minister. The world view of the Trudeau-Coyne et al family does not exist.
I hear the Liberals re now third place in the polls outside of my home province where they are second to the Bloc.
Even the NDP have abandoned the carbon tax. Get over it. Au revoir Justin, even proroguing of parliament and any new leader will not save this Liberal party.
i really hope the author of this article has no ties to the sinking ship that is the MP for Burlington – Karina Gould. Lets debate the carbon tax but lets do so after you get rid of this MP. Do the right thing. Id rather abandon our climate goals considering we are a low world-wide emitter, then abandoning our 2% NATO commitments. This government has things very backwards. The issue is, this was a government that wanted to be famous and cement a legacy on climate-change globally. So glad to see this plan crumble. Trying to punish it citizens so they can puff out their chest globally on how we are doing our part. Pure baloney. Gould, Pam in Oakville, all these failed leaders need to be voted out.
Like Fox news Ray is playing to his base. In the case of Fox its the Trump base in the case of Ray and the BG its the Trudeau base. Note than in neither case did I make any reference to them playing to a political party, because they are not and they are not winning over the centrist or swing voter of which I am one. IMO they are hoping to secure their base.
The ‘why?’ Is simple: politics. You can find it in everything. Supply Management. Automobile subsidies. $1 beer. Once in the hands of the backroom boys in the respective PMOs even great policies get fine-tuned and twisted, hoping to grab a vote here or there. Eventually everything collapses.
Dear P Wag, thank you for your extensive and well researched comments. Since you challenged me on the effectiveness of carbon pricing, I would like to make a couple points. First when talking about GHG reductions last year (2023) we need to also remember that Canada’s population grew by over a million people in that period. I’d argue that the more appropriate measure to judge the effectiveness of carbon pricing would be GHG per capita. Then, the other question is what those emissions would have have been without carbon pricing at all.
You are absolutely right that Nordhaus & Romer’s analysis was really in the context of global carbon pricing. And if I were advising Mr. Trudeau I’d argue for an appropriate tariff on imports of products from nations which do not have some form of carbon pricing (eg carbon trading) or have not shown significant GHG emissions otherwise. That should be a topic at GATT.
As an aside, had I been asked at the get-go, I would have argued for an excise tax and excise duty on new fossil fuel burning appliances (including autos) sold in Canada rather than on the fuel itself. Such a tax is clearly within the federal government’s power, thus avoiding the jurisdictional turf fighting. I wonder how EV sales might respond were there an excise tax of 100% on all new gas guzzlers. People driving existing guzzlers or heating with archaic gas and oil technology would not be affected until it was time to replace those appliances. And the tax revenue could go to paying down the debt.
Finally, your own case study makes the very argument for some form of carbon pricing. That you are paying more than you are getting back in rebates is because you are failing to respond to the price signals. I pay no carbon tax to drive my EV and I pay no carbon tax to heat my home with my ground source heat pump.
Ray, if you believe that carbon emissions are driving climate change, then GHG per capita is irrelevant. TOTAL emissions are what is driving climate change so if you grow your population (unchecked immigration in this case) so don’t get a free pass that your total emissions are still rising.
Interestingly, I do agree with your position on imposing tariffs but recognizing that those too will produce significant negative economic consequences in the form of higher prices for those imported goods and trade retaliation which will further reduce economic growth.
“gas guzzlers”–a bit over the top, Ray, reflecting your serious bias against ICE vehicles. Do you realize according to the EPA in the USA that fuel efficiency has improved 35.4% in the past twenty years. The problem with government mandating consumer choices by interference in the marketplace is that the consequences may prove to be very negative–force people to continue to use their old ice vehicles is asking to increase emissions. There are serious problems with EV technology at present–battery technology is perceived correctly as not being reliable in colder temperatures and the infrastructure to support it is non-existent in many areas. EV’s are likely an option to consider if you are using them in a purely urban environment; however, in a rural environment, they just aren’t feasible. In late May, I spent a week in Rainy River where I saw zero infrastructure and not surprisingly zero EV’s. (And as an aside, no gas station either–it closed due to lack of business. Locals buy their gas at carbon-tax-free Baudette, Minn at $1.15 per litre)
Would I consider an EV? Sure if it meets 3 criteria–a range of 500 km even in winter, charging stations within 20 kms, and a charging time of under 5 minutes, including waiting for the charging station to come available. I drive a great deal in rural and northern Ontario, convenience and efficiency are critical.
Lastly, I may not be able to afford to respond to the price signals. The power plant in my house is only 10 years old–I’m not going to rip it out and replace it with a heat pump when I’m likely moving within 5 years. And when I bought a new car last year, I bought an ICE vehicle–EV’s were too expensive and inconvenient given my needs; even the same model vehicle available as a hybrid was priced far too high to make that choice viable. And the one big variable you are ignoring that half of the Canadian population is living paycheque to paycheque and can’t afford the needed capital investments.
Well said Ray.
I note that Rivers has not commented on the effectiveness of the Trudeau Carbon Tax (plus Carbon Tax II plus HST on those carbon taxes). Interesting that EDGAR (the European Commission that monitors worldwide GHG emissions) shows that Canada’s GHG emissions actually ROSE by 2.43 mt in 2023. It also shows that from 2015 to 2023, those GHG emissions have only fallen from 755.9 mt to 747.7 mt–that’s a whopping 8.2 mt over 8 years of Trudeau’s focus on climate change! Achieved at a significant economic cost to Canadians–the carbon taxes have not only increased the cost of living but as several recent reports have shown, are also reducing growth in the GDP. Meanwhile, China’s emissions increased in 2023 by 784 mt–more than the entire Canadian economy produces in a year!
In their Nobel winning thesis on carbon pricing, Nordhaus & Romer stated that carbon pricing was the most cost effective method of reducing carbon emissions. That statement is repeatedly reported by the Liberal climate zealots. But here’s the part of that thesis that the climate zealots DELIBERATELY OMIT–Nordaus and Romer were bright guys and they recognized that climate change (wait for it) was a GLOBAL problem that required (wait for it again) a GLOBAL SOLUTION. That is why they proposed carbon pricing on a global basis with penalties for countries that didn’t comply. What the EDGAR data proves is what most Canadian know–there is no point to Canada reducing its standard of living while countries like China increase their GHG emissions by more than Canada’s total emissions. Fortunately, intelligent Canadians are figuring out that Trudeau’s carbon tax scam is a very expensive exercise in virtue-signaling. It’s like p*ssing into the wind–after the initial euphoria of relief, you realize that your pants are soaked.
Lastly, let’s look at the much-touted myth that 80% of Canadians get back more in carbon rebate than they pay. For many Canadians, this is likely true if all you consider are the DIRECT carbon taxes that you pay. Unfortunately, that analysis is highly misleading. Right from the very implementation of the Trudeau Carbon Tax, I considered in my personal situation that I wasn’t getting back as much in carbon rebate as I was paying–I did the math! I’m a single, middle-income retiree living in his own home. In the current year, I will receive a carbon tax rebate of $560. In DIRECT CARBON TAXES, I pay $494 per year in gasoline carbon tax (including HST on the tax). Of course, it is MUCH MORE than this because the carbon tax II (the so-called Clean Fuel Standard) is hidden from me but currently is likely another $260 per year (estimated at .10 per litre). However, I’m not finished paying carbon taxes–I have also spent another $185 this year on carbon taxes on heating my home. So in DIRECT carbon taxes alone, I’m out at least $179 this year. But I’m not finished, I also pay INDIRECT CARBON TAXES in the form of higher prices as business passes on its higher costs of energy; even the City of Burlington passes these on in its property taxes. I estimate these at 1% of my total purchases for the year, excluding energy (likely low since . These amount to nearly $400 per year. So in total, I’m out at least $580 per year.
Readers should also note that the Trudeau Carbon Tax (+HST on the tax) adds at least 27% to my heating bill and both Carbon Taxes (+HST on the tax) add approximately 21% to my current gasoline costs.
Mea Culpa. Typo error that I didn’t catch–I should have indicated $119 in the amount for direct carbon taxes that I’m out. This of course will change the last line to “at least $520”.
So appreciate your common sense Mr. Rivers….Poilievre does nothing but rant and waste government time on non confidence motions, he offers nothing in the way of solutions . Like Trump he ignores basic science and economics and is fixated on power.
Ford is a man consumed with development and beer…he has forgotten about education and health care …two of the most critical parts of his responsibilities…surely we can do better.