Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took shots at the NDP on Friday for equivocating on the consumer carbon price, accusing Jagmeet Singh of caving to political pressure from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
Speaking to reporters in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Que., Trudeau blasted the NDP in response to a question about the upcoming byelection in Montreal, arguing that voters in the riding deserve better than a party that would “walk away” from progressive values and the fight against climate change.
“I do believe that Jagmeet Singh and the NDP actually do care about the environment. It’s just increasingly obvious that they have no idea what to do to fight against climate change,” Trudeau said.
“They had no ideas on the environment, and one of the first things they do after walking away from that agreement to deliver progressive things for Canadians, is walk away from any plan to fight climate change.”
Trudeau was referring to the NDP leader’s announcement last week that the party was leaving the supply-and-confidence deal with the minority government.
On Thursday, Singh said the NDP is working on a plan that wouldn’t put the burden of fighting climate change on the backs of workers, but he would not say if that plan would include a consumer carbon price.
Canada has a levy on fuel purchased by individuals and smaller businesses and another that is applied to a portion of the actual emissions produced by big industrial companies. The price per tonne is the same, but the way the systems work is different.
Singh’s noncommittal position comes as the NDP tries to frame itself as a credible alternative to the Conservatives in the next federal election.
While the Conservatives have blamed the carbon levy for raising the cost of living, the prime minister once again cited the parliamentary budget officer’s finding that eight out of 10 households in jurisdictions that have the federal backstop receive more money in rebates than they pay in carbon pricing.
“And yet, Jagmeet Singh and the NDP are caving to the political pressures from Pierre Poilievre and from the Conservatives,” Trudeau said.
“That’s not what Montrealers expect and deserve.”
Voters will be heading to the polls on Sept. 16 in the Montreal riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. The seat was held by former justice minister David Lametti before he resigned last winter.
Another byelection will be held on the same day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, a seat that has been held by the NDP.
Poilievre responded to Singh’s Thursday comments by releasing a video pointing out that the NDP has voted time and again in favour of the Liberals’ carbon price.
In response to Trudeau’s comments on Friday, the NDP said in a statement that the prime minister “destroyed” any credibility his plan had when he allowed a carveout for heating oil — a move that disproportionately favoured Atlantic Canadians. While the exemption applies everywhere, a larger proportion of homes use heating oil in the Atlantic region than anywhere else.
“We’ll take no lessons from the Trudeau government, knowing they haven’t met even a single climate target,” said Laurel Collins, the NDP’s environment critic.
“And obviously, we won’t be listening to the slash-and-burn Conservatives. Pierre Poilievre would make it even easier for big polluters to keep polluting our lakes, rivers and air.”
British Columbia Premier David Eby also changed his tune on Thursday, promising that a re-elected NDP government would scrap the long-standing carbon tax and shift the burden to “big polluters,” if the federal government dropped its requirements.
Economists are widely in favour of carbon pricing, arguing it is the most cost effective way to reduce emissions. It is also favoured by climate activists.
Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, said he wants to see how the NDP plans to reduce emissions and wishes Singh had said how he would shift the burden to big polluters.
“My big concern was that he seemed to be repeating right-wing talking points coming from Pierre Poilievre on how the carbon price is unfair to lower income Canadians. And that’s not true,” Stewart said.
The Liberal government gives all of the money it collects from the consumer carbon price back to families in the form of rebates. The rebates allowed the government to tout the climate policy for both reducing emissions and putting back more money in the pockets of lower-income households.
Andrew Leach, an economics professor at the University of Alberta, said the rebates are what got centre-left politicians in Canada on board with the policy, which was previously advocated for by conservatives-leaning policymakers and politicians.
“When you redistribute the average revenue across the board, as the federal carbon price does, it just makes people at those lower incomes better off,” Leach said.
“So (the rebates) changed the view of this policy for progressive politicians in Canada, and it changed what was sort of a classic right-wing or centre-right policy into one that’s that was acceptable to politicians further on the left.”
Now, as New Democrats at the federal and provincial levels waver on the consumer carbon price, Leach said they will have to figure out how they plan to aggressively reduce emissions without putting a price on a significant portion of emissions.
“The math gets pretty hard,” Leach said.
According to a 2022 report from Statistics Canada, about 41 per cent of Canadian emissions were the result of household consumption.
A Canadian Climate Institute report earlier this year said the carbon price could eliminate about 100 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, about one-fifth of that from the consumer levy and the rest from big industry. Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault argued at the time that while the consumer levy may not be as impactful on emissions as the industrial price, it’s still a significant amount.
Twenty million tonnes is about what 4.7 million passenger vehicles emit over the course of a year.
Leach also noted that focusing on big polluters would disproportionately affect Western Canada, which would make it “a very unbalanced policy from a federalism perspective.”