Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) Yves Giroux is troubled by those who selectively read his latest financial report on the federal fuel charge.
He says his report needs to be put in the right context, including comparing the costs of all other climate change policies, including the do-nothing policy.
“No matter what we do, it will have a cost,” said Mr. Giroux in an interview with The Canadian Press.
The PBO sparked a political firestorm last week when it concluded in a report that “most households will experience a net gain from receiving more Climate Action Incentive payments than the total amount they pay. as a federal fuel charge.
However, the situation is reversed if economic impacts such as loss of employment and investment income are taken into account.
Each province must have the same pricing levied on fuels that emit greenhouse gases, but only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario used the federal scheme in 2021.
The Liberals and the Conservatives consider that the report gives them grist to the mill.
For the former, it demonstrates that the license fee makes life more affordable for the majority. The latter call it a “sneaky tax” that increases the cost of living.
According to Mr. Giroux, you cannot choose which part of your report you want to focus on.
“That we dwell on a single aspect of the report worries me,” he admits. It’s better to look at the big picture. Everything we do to fight climate change will have a cost. The choice is between a carbon tax or regulations to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Regulation also has a cost. Doing nothing also has a cost. »
Imposing a carbon tax is based on the idea that the high cost of fuel will have consequences on consumption. The charge is intended to limit the impact of rising costs on households.
The principle seems simple, but the reality is more complex. However, the issue lends itself well to political rhetoric and misinformation.
Christopher Ragan, director of the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University, laments that the Conservatives are not talking about the alternatives they would propose to replace the carbon tax. He too says that the choice to do nothing will have a cost.
He criticizes the Liberal government for poorly explaining the carbon tax.
“He’s pretty bad at explaining it and communicating about it,” he says.
The government is trying to focus almost exclusively on the money people can save through the levy or by buying an electric vehicle. It is less clear that the carbon levy has a cost. Yet that’s the point: to ensure that the price of fossil fuels is higher.
“It’s as if he chose not to engage in this debate or if he does, he’s not very effective. And I’m not sure what the right solution is, ”adds Professor Ragan.
In another report published last year, Yves Giroux indicated that an increase in the carbon tax to $170 per tonne would eliminate 96 million more tonnes of emissions than if the tax remained at $50 per tonne. tonne.
The government cannot yet show the public the impact of the carbon tax.
Federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault says the analysis currently underway is not yet ready for publication. He acknowledges that the federal government’s message on climate change and the carbon levy is not always as effective as it should be.
“We need to be more effective when communicating about climate change,” he says.
A source of frustration for the Liberals: the PBO’s refusal to estimate the economic and environmental costs of climate change in its report.
Guelph MP Lloyd Longfield, a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment, wrote to Mr. Giroux asking him to include these factors in his analysis. He also wants him to take into account the economic benefits of investing in industries that emit little greenhouse gas.
“Ignoring it does the discussion a disservice,” argues the MP.
For Mr. Giroux, it is those who read or discuss his report who must put the situation into context.
“Our caveat is clearly included in the report. If individuals or groups use our report and explain it in their own way, it is up to them to say why. »