Brown-John: ‘Axe the Tax’ — but then do what to curb pollution?

Breadcrumb Trail Links

OpinionColumnists

Article content

By: Lloyd Brown-John

This has been an unusual winter in Canada. We’ve had little snow and some rain.

Article content

Some regions of Canada, including southeast Alberta and southwest Saskatchewan, are experiencing a winter with little snow — vital for moisture for crops.

According to Agriculture Canada’s “Canadian Drought Monitor” many prairie areas plus several regions in B.C. are under severe to extreme drought warnings. Parts of Ontario and much of New Brunswick are experiencing abnormally dry to moderate drought conditions.

Article content

After widespread and terrifying wild fires in the summer of 2023, advance training and preparation for another summer of heat, fires and smoke is underway, particularly in western Canada.

According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, severe weather in Canada in 2023 caused an estimated $3.1 billion in insured damage. Uninsured damages could run another billion dollars.

According to the Weather Network: “The year 2023 in Canada won’t be forgotten … thanks to many extreme events that transpired. From record-breaking wildfires and heat to the country’s strongest tornado in five years, it was a memorable 12 months.”

Hence the question: are these unusual weather happenings a consequence of climate change? And it follows, “if so, how do we cope with climate change?”

This is a serious public policy issue. But the best Canada’s Conservatives can come up with is Poilievre’s “Axe The Tax” slogan. Mindlessly echoed by some protesters in Windsor and elsewhere.

Conservative MP Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West), chair of the Government Operations and Estimates committee, extended an invitation to provincial premiers to appear and denounce the Liberal government’s carbon tax.

Article content

“Premiers should be welcomed before parliamentary committees and given the opportunity to testify, especially on matters of national importance,” McCauley said.

Showing up to denounce the carbon tax were Conservative premiers Blaine Higgs of New Brunswick, Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe (virtually) and, no surprise, Alberta’s Danielle Smith. They were among the leaders who previously launched a constitutional court challenge against the federal government’s carbon pricing policy that eventually led to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that the federal government has the authority to implement a minimum price on pollution.

Higgs was quoted by CTV News as telling the committee: “I’d like to see the carbon tax gone because I don’t think it’s the answer to us improving our overall emissions and reducing them.”

Fair enough, Canada’s Conservative premiers oppose the current federal carbon emissions tax. Now remember, most Canadians receive a Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR) which can be as high as $900 annually for a single taxpayer in Alberta ($1,800 for a family of four) or $560 in Ontario ($1,120 for a family of four).

Article content

The carbon tax is intended to make polluters pay for pollution, with revenues used, via the CCR, to compensate individuals and families by offsetting the impact of the carbon tax attached to goods.

I trust that Conservative leaders, including Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Poilievre, would “axe the tax” and thereby also axe carbon tax rebates.

As the premiers ranted, a wide range of Canadian economists sought to counter the opposition to, and misinformation about, the carbon tax. In an open letter, they said that, since federal carbon pricing took effect in 2019, Canada’s GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions have fallen by almost eight per cent. They also stated carbon pricing reduces emissions at a lower cost than other approaches.

Ultimately, this boils down to a single question for Poilievre, who dismissed the experts, and his dull-axe tax axers.

What is Poilievre’s policy alternative to carbon pricing that will achieve positive climate change results?

Dear premiers in opposition to the carbon tax, what alternate policy have you developed that would replace a pollution emissions program that has delivered modest results and partially offsets taxpayers collateral costs of the carbon tax?

Anybody can freely denounce any tax. But if the policy appears to be edging towards a goal of reducing pollution and saving our climate then surely naysayers have an obligation to produce a viable policy alternative.

So far, they’ve just muttered and muddled and demonstrated.

Lloyd Brown-John is a University of Windsor professor emeritus of political science and director of Canterbury ElderCollege. He can be reached at lbj@uwindsor.ca.

Article content

Share this article in your social network