New Year’s prediction: Pierre Poilievre’s crusade against the carbon tax won’t work out very well for the Conservatives in 2024.
Why? Because, as The Canadian Press reports: “The Parliamentary Budget Office says when the carbon price hits $170 per tonne in 2030, the average Canadian household will get $388 more from the rebate than they pay for carbon pricing. Lower-income households that pay less in fuel will benefit even more.”
I doubt Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party’s ride-or-die haters will concede to reality. But as Canada’s yet-to-be-called next federal election draws nearer, and more and more Canadians tune back into federal politics, Poilievre’s position is going to make him look ridiculous.
Once the facts are well known, the only Canadians who will actually want Poilievre to “axe the tax” are people with an ideological axe to grind – either because they think climate change is a hoax, or because they believe Canada has no obligation to do anything about it, since we only produce 1.5% of global emissions (never mind that we only account for 0.5% of the population, right?).
There will always be people who choose to bury their heads in the oil sands, so to speak. But according to a Ledger poll conducted after last summer’s wildfires, 72% of Canadians are worried or very worried about climate change compared to 21% who aren’t very worried and only 7% who aren’t worried at all.
The corporate carbon tax is another matter entirely. But Poilievre’s opposition to it is similarly silly. That’s because most economists and business lobbyists agree that a carbon tax is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, if Canada didn’t have corporate carbon pricing, then Canadian exporters would be forced to pay fines to trading partners that do.
That’s why Canada’s new trade deal with Ukraine includes a pledge to promote carbon pricing – because Ukraine is required to have such policies in place to join the European Union, and because joining the European Union is central to Ukraine’s plan to prevent another Russian invasion.
But the Conservatives voted against that agreement – despite the fact that Ukraine already has carbon pricing and had already signed it. And that was when the tide began to turn against Poilievre: Columnists and commentators who had been all-but cheering Trudeau’s plummet in the polls suddenly began to wonder and worry about the guy running to replace him.
Mind you, it didn’t help matters that around the same time Poilievre referenced a false Fox News report of a terrorist attack at the Canadian border during Question Period – and then lied and lashed out at a reporter for questioning his conduct the following day.
That petulant performance by the would-be prime minister stood in stark contrast to his infamous kicking-ass-while-eating-an-apple exchange, when another reporter accused Poilievre of “taking a page out of the Donald Trump book” but then failed to provide any evidence to support the claim.
However, now the MAGA Republican comparison seems like less of a stretch. That’s because far-right American politicians have all but forsaken Ukraine – because they don’t think the United States has any responsibility to save a democracy from being destroyed by an authoritarian state, or because they admire Vladimir Putin’s brutality and wish he would cradle them to sleep in his manly embrace.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Poilievre admires Putin or would turn his back on Ukraine. Quite the opposite: I think Poilievre despises Putin and would stand firmly with Ukraine. I think that a better explanation for his bewildering behaviour is simply that he was so blinded by his hatred of carbon taxes that he honestly believed he was somehow doing Ukraine a favour.
It will be interesting to see how this debate plays out in 2024. While we’re likely to see and hear a lot from Poilievre in the coming days on social media and through his handful of hand-picked right-wing media outlets, he still has four more weeks of winter vacation left (wouldn’t that be nice?).
But when the House of Commons resumes in February, will Poilievre pivot? Or will he continue to blow most of his precious speaking time in Question Period railing against the carbon tax – especially as it relates to a single mushroom farm located in his Ottawa-area riding?
In the final weeks of the fall session, Poilievre repeatedly insisted that it’s obscene for that farm to be charged more than $100,000 in carbon tax – evidently without caring that anybody willing to do some back-of-the-envelope math would quickly conclude that the farm is in fact a significant commercial operation… not some struggling mom-and-pop mushroom shop.
I don’t think that standing up for the big guy will end up playing particularly well with the “everyday Canadians” Poilievre is always talking about. If Poilievre does stick to his promise to roll back the carbon tax, he’s likely going to find himself on the defensive in 2024.
So, as we leave the season of giving behind us and begin a new year, I’d like to offer Poilievre some totally unsolicited advice: Give up your pointless war on carbon pricing, and instead get serious about providing workable solutions for Canada’s housing crisis. Canadians would be grateful — and it might just give you a fighting chance in the next election.