Pierre Poilievre has raised his refrain across the country, 鈥淎xe the Tax!鈥�

He is referring to the carbon tax, of course. But he has been mute about how he will replace it, and how he will fight climate change. His only suggestion has been 鈥渢echnology.鈥� That鈥檚 a non-answer. How will he convince the private sector to make the massive investment required in technology?

Experts suggest carbon pricing is the right choice. Canada鈥檚 Ecofiscal Commission, a panel of economists, in a 2019 report recommended it. 鈥淎 stringent, rising carbon tax can get Canada to its 2030 target at the lowest possible price to the economy.鈥� The commission affirmed this finding is 鈥渃onsistent with numerous other studies.鈥�

In addition to the carbon tax, there are two other broad climate policy options: regulation and subsidies. The 台湾MM裸聊室 government has rashly chosen all of the above. They have revealed a series of climate regulations applying to broad sectors of the economy to supplement the carbon tax. The government now seeks to regulate electrical generation, oil and gas production, home and commercial construction, automobile production and no doubt more sectors.

The goal is to impose emissions limits upon a wide swath of manufacturing and resource industries, while incentivizing company and consumer actions it wants where it can鈥檛 regulate, and where it can as well. This effort is ill-advised for three reasons:

First, the constitutionality of the regulations is suspect. Alberta and Saskatchewan will object to federal intrusion in their jurisdiction over resources. The Supreme Court, in a comparable case, ruled the Impact Assessment Act is largely unconstitutional. The court asserted that the federal government must respect the 鈥渄ivision of powers framework laid out in the constitution.鈥�

Grant Bishop argues in a C.D. Howe Institute memo that the court has precluded, 鈥渂road federal jurisdiction for regulating each and every GHG-emitting activity.鈥�

Bishop states the IMA ruling puts the government鈥檚 net-zero electricity regulation and industry-specific cap on emissions of the oil and gas industry on 鈥渟haky constitutional ground.鈥� These matters could remain before the courts for years to come, creating uncertainty and impeding private-sector investment.

Second, companies will find themselves subject to heavy costs related to climate regulation in all targeted industries. The costs will further weigh on the competitiveness of Canadian goods and on the economy more broadly. Canada鈥檚 present economic and income growth is arguably amongst the worst in the developed world. Under the Liberals, that is destined to continue.

Third, to continue to follow the lead of the Biden Administration in the United States 鈥� providing subsidies for clean industries and clean incentives for consumers 鈥� is prohibitively expensive. It will further erode the government鈥檚 fiscal position and Canada鈥檚 competitive position.

The Ecofiscal Commission report examined three approaches to reduce emissions to Canada鈥檚 2030 target. A significantly higher economy-wide carbon tax results in GDP per capita about $1,200 higher in 2030 than does subsidies and economy-wide regulations, and $3,300 higher than does subsidies and industry-specific regulations. In fact, under the last approach, GDP per capita falls. A version of this approach is the one the Liberals have inappropriately adopted.

It is not hyperbolic to suggest that Liberal climate policies may threaten Canadians鈥� livelihood and Canada鈥檚 national unity.

Back to Poilievre. To vilify the carbon tax was an astute political move. He saw the affordability crisis coming, and he shrewdly and consistently focused on it before his political opponents did. 鈥淎xe the tax鈥� is a major piece of this strategy, and has aided the Conservatives鈥� rise in the polls.

But it is unfortunate the CPC have successfully turned public opinion against the tax. If the Conservatives assume power, they will have effectively taken Canada鈥檚 least costly option for addressing climate change off the table. And they will have rejected the best policy option for a free-enterprise, Conservative government 鈥� a market-based approach to reduce GHG emissions.

Finally, if a prospective Conservative government is to cut emissions, it will be forced to adopt the more intrusive and costly regulatory and subsidization policies championed by the Liberals. That is an adverse outcome for any government and for the country!

bruce

Bruce Uzelman, based in Kelowna, holds interests in economics and political science. He writes a regular column for Black Press publications