Et tu, Jagmeet?
Last week the NDP leader joined Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and several provincial premiers in calling for Justin Trudeau to kill Canada’s consumer carbon tax. But instead of stabbing the prime minister in the back, he shot himself in the foot.
One day after Singh said that “we believe in making the big polluters pay and not having working people feel like they are the ones that are somehow having to shoulder this,” he shared a statement clarifying that “New Democrats have not changed our position on the consumer carbon price.”
The operative word in Singh’s initial statement is “feel.” That’s because the debate over Canada’s price on pollution has left the realm of facts. Thanks to Poilievre’s incessant “axe the tax” rhetoric on social media, our national conversation has become all about the vibes.
According to non-partisan analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 80% of Canadian households financially benefit from the policy. But according to a poll by Abacus Data, 55% of Canadians with an opinion oppose the tax – and 51% don’t even know that they’re receiving a rebate.
Instead of attempting to have an adult conversation about a serious subject, Singh and Poilievre are trying to capitalize on the confusion by calling for the prime minister to hold a televised debate with the provincial premiers who are demanding that Trudeau cancel the consumer carbon price.
They’re doing this despite the fact that Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, who is breaking federal law by refusing to collect the tax, admitted last month that he already tried to come up with a better plan to meet Canada’s emission reduction targets – but was unable to.
Then there’s Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who blames the consumer carbon price for the affordability crisis, despite the fact that he’s personally responsible for the policy by way of cancelling the cap-and-trade system that would have exempted Ontarians.
And let’s not forget Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who is demanding that Trudeau cancel the consumer carbon price despite a 2021 video of her saying that she handles her family’s finances and that “I would say that I probably ended up better off with that transfer.”
Poilievre and the premiers justify their position – despite the fact that most Canadians get more money from the rebate than they pay in the tax – by quoting the PBO’s finding that only one-in-five financially benefit once the policy’s broader economic impact is considered.
But the broader economic impact is not increased inflation, despite what Poilievre and the premiers claim, because the Bank of Canada estimates that the carbon price contributes only 0.15% to the national rate.
Instead, the PBO merely considers reduced economic activity in certain sectors, such as oil and gas. But the analysis doesn’t also consider increased economic activity in other sectors, such as green technology.
More importantly, the analysis simply compares the economic impact of the federal carbon price with doing nothing to mitigate climate change – without also considering the corresponding economic costs of doing nothing to mitigate climate change.
And perhaps most glaring of all, it doesn’t compare the cost of the Liberal plan with Conservative or NDP alternatives – because neither party has bothered to propose one.
So, at least until they do, Trudeau’s plan is the best one we have. And while the consumer carbon price is just part of the government’s plan to reduce emissions, there’s no way Canada can hit its targets without it. The consumer carbon price is expected to contribute 8% to 9% of total reductions by 2030 – roughly equivalent to the total emissions produced by Manitoba or three Atlantic provinces.
It’s utterly unsurprising that Poilievre would oppose the consumer carbon price in spite of these facts, considering that two thirds of his supporters either don’t believe that climate change is caused by human activity or don’t believe in climate change at all. But why would Singh want to distance his party from the best plan Canada has for transitioning to a net-zero carbon economy?
Once upon a time, New Democrats represented progressive values and working-class interests while Conservatives represented regressive taxes and corporate interests – and Liberals tried to split the difference. But we are undergoing a great realignment in Canadian federal politics right now.
Poilievre has been trying to court young people who can’t afford rent, let alone a mortgage. Trudeau has been trying to solve the climate crisis while lifting millions of Canadians out of poverty. Singh, meanwhile, has been trying to appeal to those extremely online people who are convinced that the biggest threats Canadians face are capitalism (as personified by Loblaws) and colonialism (as personified by Israel).
So where does that leave the federal NDP?
Embroiled in an identity crisis, if not an existential one. New Democrats now find themselves in their darkest timeline: the Conservatives have become the party of the working class; the Liberals have become the party of progressive values; and the NDP has become a party without a purpose.
But hope is not lost. Singh just needs to stop paying attention to his social media timelines and start paying attention to the real-life timeline that we’re actually living in. And he needs to stop saying what he believes his social media followers want to hear – and start doing what his party’s long-time supporters believe is right.
Poilievre is correct. Most Canadian's do not receive back what we pay. The carbon tax is grossly affecting food producers, distributors and the cost of many needed foods. The government heard Atlantic Canadian's and axed it on heating but nowhere else. Yes Singh is an idiot but it is good he realizes he was wrong.