When Jagmeet Singh was selected by NDP members to replace Thomas Mulcair in 2017, it looked like they had found their answer to Justin Trudeau. As the Canadian Press’s Kristy Kirkup wrote at the time, “He’s young, hip and brimming with charisma, a likable rookie with an eye for style and a robust following on social media who wants to be Canada’s next prime minister. Sound familiar?”
Instead, they may have unwittingly elected a Pierre Poilievre impersonator. From his fondness for online name calling to his studied indifference to things like causality and jurisdiction, Singh has behaved far more like the Conservative Party of Canada’s leader than the prime minister. His apparent intention to abandon support for the federal government’s carbon tax and rebate, one he justified on the exact same basis that Poilievre has been attacking it for over a year, is the most glaring example yet. “We want to see an approach to fighting the climate crisis where it doesn’t put the burden on the backs of working people,” Singh told the Globe and Mail. Sound familiar?
This is a betrayal of his own party and membership on a bunch of different fronts. The federal carbon tax and rebate — one Singh and his party have backed enthusiastically for nearly five years — was based heavily on the tax introduced by Alberta’s NDP government in 2015.
But it’s not just the Alberta wing of his party Singh is betraying. The BC NDP is in the midst of a very tight provincial election campaign in which the province’s carbon tax is a major bone of contention. The BC Conservatives have promised over and over again to eliminate it, while the governing BC NDP has stood behind it. Singh’s retreat here will almost certainly make that position more difficult to defend than it already was — and may even cost the party the election. Indeed, the BC Conservative Party released a statement on Thursday “thanking” Singh for his comments.
Worst of all, perhaps, is his willingness to endorse Poilievre’s deliberately dishonest framing of the carbon tax and its supposed impact on working people. Let’s be clear: all of the arguments Poilievre and his proxies have made about the carbon tax’s supposedly inflationary effects on grocery prices, housing, and the cost of living have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. As Governor of the Bank of Canada Tiff Macklem noted last September, the carbon tax adds a grand total of 0.15 per cent to inflation. Case in point: while the carbon tax has increased by an additional $30 per tonne since inflation peaked at 8.1 per cent in June 2022, inflation itself has come all the way down to 2.5 per cent as of this July. You’d be pretty hard pressed to draw a correlation there.
And yet, that’s what Poilievre keeps doing — and what Singh has implicitly endorsed with his comments. Singh also traded in the demonstrably false idea that the carbon tax disproportionately hurts lower-income people, even though the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s analysis has repeatedly shown they get more back in rebates than they pay. Even when you include the PBO’s modeled economic impacts — that, controversially, don’t assign any cost to inaction on climate change — the lowest earning 40 per cent of Canadians net out ahead.
Eliminating the tax and rebate would therefore take money out of the pockets of low-income Canadians. The biggest beneficiaries, meanwhile, would be the richest Canadians, with wealthy Albertans being the biggest winners of all. Those are supposed to be the voters the CPC caters to, not the NDP. Perhaps Singh’s own status as a relatively wealthy person is interfering with his ability to see the politics here clearly.
All of this might — might — be excusable if Singh had a ready-made alternative to propose. Alas, to borrow Donald Trump’s widely mocked words from this week’s presidential debate, he only has the concepts of a plan at this point. “We’ve been working on a plan,” he said Thursday, “and we’ll be releasing our plan, our vision, for how we can do that in a stronger way in the coming months.”
Said plan will apparently focus on making “big polluters” pay their “fair share”. That might be difficult given the heavy lifting the current carbon tax regime is already doing on that front. Recent analysis by the Canadian Climate Institute shows industrial carbon pricing — that is, the portion of the tax paid by “big polluters” — will be responsible for between 23 and 39 per cent of projected emissions reductions by 2030. The consumer carbon tax, in contrast, is expected to generate less than 10 per cent.
And, of course, the federal government is still proceeding with its emissions cap for oil and gas companies and clean electricity regulations. How Singh intends to deliver even more reductions here remains to be seen — as do the political ramifications of a more concerted crackdown on large industry and business.
For the beleaguered Trudeau Liberals, this counts as a rare piece of good news. They can paint themselves as the sole defenders of the carbon tax and rebate regime, one they’re wedded to until political death do they part. They can go after Singh and the NDP for their refusal to stand firm on an issue that’s especially important to their voters. And they can point out that for a guy who was billed as the next coming of Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh has turned out to be little more than a Pierre Poilievre clone.
Comments
Excellent analysis by Fawcett.
Federal and provincial NDP leaders have been backing away from the consumer carbon price for months now, using the same false arguments the Conservatives employ. Maddening!
Is there no one in the NDP who can explain carbon "tax" rebates to Singh?
Axe the tax means axe the rebate.
Either Singh does not understand the policy, in which case he is incompetent, or he is being dishonest with Canadians. Which is worse?
Singh: "We want to see an approach to fighting the climate crisis where it doesn't put the burden on the backs of working people, where big polluters have to pay their fair share."
Large industrial emitters pass on their carbon costs down the supply chain to consumers. A hike in the carbon price for large industrial emitters eventually finds its way to consumers.
Under Singh's plan, consumers would bear the higher costs, presumably without the current rebate.
Rather than defend sensible climate policy that serves the interests of working-class families and communities, the NDP and other progressive politicians cede the argument to the lying Conservatives, pander to the anti-science rabble, defer to public ignorance, and sacrifice climate policy for votes. With nothing on the table to replace it.
All Alberta NDP leadership candidates ruled out a consumer carbon tax.
"Manitoba premier says he'll take up PM's challenge to find carbon tax alternative" (CBC, Mar 31, 2024)
"Kinew says measures in this week's provincial budget will put Manitoba on path to net zero without federal tax"
"Trudeau says N.L. premier bowing to political pressure over carbon tax increase" (CBC, Mar 15, 2024)
"Andrew Furey, a Liberal, called this week for the carbon tax increase to be delayed"
"Ontario Liberals rule out provincial carbon tax as part of 2026 election platform" (CBC, Mar 18, 2024)
MP and NDP environment critic Laurel Collins backed away from carbon pricing in April:
"NDP join Tories to demand emergency meeting on carbon tax" (CP, April 10, 2024)
"The federal New Democrats backed Conservative demands Wednesday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau take part in a televised 'emergency meeting' on carbon pricing with Canada's premiers.
"The federal carbon price is not the 'be-all, end-all' of climate policy and New Democrats are open to alternative plans presented by premiers, NDP environment critic Laurel Collins said Wednesday.
"Collins accused the Liberal government of using climate as a political wedge issue, and that a meeting would help unite Canadians and spark new ideas."
When the conservatives go on the attack, carbon pricing can still stand as long as progressive politicians defend it. It's when progressive politicians fail to defend carbon pricing that the roof caves in. For that, federal and provincial Liberal and provincial NDP politicians are to blame.
Today B.C. Premier David Eby joined the stampede:
"B.C. will scrap consumer carbon tax if Ottawa drops requirement" (CP, Sep 12, 2024)
"British Columbia Premier David Eby says his government will end the provincial carbon tax on consumers and shift the onus to 'big polluters' if the federal government removes a legal requirement to keep the tax in place.
"Eby says B.C. residents are struggling with affordability, but a re-elected NDP government would make 'big polluters' pay a price for carbon to take action on climate change.
"… Eby says the 'context and challenges' facing British Columbians have changed amid high interest rates, inflation and affordability issues, and a new approach would ensure 'big polluters are paying their fair share.'"
Same false rhetoric.
Ironic given the billions of tax dollars governments funnel into fossil-fuel companies' pockets.
Well spoken.. the posture of Singh is unbelievable!
Can't disagree with all that. Very disappointing how quickly even the so-called Party of Principle caves on key environmental measures when charlatans like Poilievre wrestled the narrative from their hands.
Thanks for this. I m printing it out to have on hand next time I stumble into an argument or a rant about the "carbon tax".
Beautifully expressed and clear.
If only the government side had been saying and writing this stuff all along in recognition that none of the usual msm have or will. Maybe they wouldnt be in such big trouble today with everyone believing the con and ndp big lies.
You can criticize the NDP’s stance on this issue without generally going after Singh as you have been doing. It seems personal and it’s a turn-off. I don’t think it does any favours to the left i.e. those working for social justice as well as taking WAY better care of our planetary home.
Nora, Singh is the leader of the NDP and is promoting this false narrative. He has been a complete failure on the climate crisis and deserves all the criticism he gets.
Long time former Dipper here. Singh has screwed up the party personally, he s all about himself and apparently follows the disgusting cons around like a lost pup. If the party can find a grown up again I d love to return.
I wish Nenshi had waited for a federal leadership because I think he s the leader we need but he has work cut out for him in Alberta.
And if we don t put criticism where it belongs, the party will continue to fail us all.
Re: long time former dipper....me too. It was BC NDP Glen Clark's arrogance and the criminality of former MLAs who stole from charities, which caused sitting premier Mike Harcourt to resign as leader, all of which made be tear up my membership. No politician or party is perfect, but when they put forward an image of moral superiority, they need to dump the arrogance that comes with it while maintaining the very principles they publicly subscribe to.
He propped up the Liberals until a couple days ago -- hardly following the Cons like a lost puppy.
"Social justice" the NDP and Jagmeet Singh no longer belong in the same sentence. A lifelong NDPer (since 1978), I no longer understand what this party is, what it stands for or who it is fighting for. I stopped providing financial support when they removed socialism from the constitution. This party has no vision, no reason to exist. Pathetic executive "leadership", inept political leader.
These days politics is arguably nothing but identity politics, and people form their identity not just along the lines of the usual markers, gender, sex, race, language and so on, but also along their work and consumption habits. There are a lot of people whose work, and pride in quality work, involves fossil fuels -- mechanics, transportation, construction, etc. I also see a lot of guys in pickup trucks...
Decarbonization will bump up against a very understandable resistance to changing one's identity. This goes much deeper than the "marketing myopia" trope of buggy whip makers going out of business because they didn't understand that they were in the transportation industry. At the individual level, it's a core value.
And since everything is identity politics these days, it's Trudeau and Gilbeault who are out of step by making an appeal to policy. Policy is good when you're in government, but the electioneering advantage is to the populists. It's natural for Singh and Poilievre to ring that bell.
Agreed about the unprecedented focus on identity politics; we have social media to thank for this massive shift.
As Max pointed out earlier, the cold war, (the original "culture war") was ostensibly dead until this highly personalized and therefore wildly compelling new tool surged into people's hot little hands, especially those formerly, mostly politically disengaged, an always lurking majority.
They have brought the trademark zeal of newbies generally, but with the distinction of the growing vengeance of the little guy, (particularly the little white guy and gender IS central) finding a focus for the simmering resentment (read rage) of being gradually collectively unseated by many significant economic and social changes, with the now decades old women's movement being the main instigator.
So it's the endemic battle of the sexes on steroids, further fueled by the existential threats of the pandemic and climate change.
Because women have never been fully "seated" at the table until relatively recently but have always so generously (one might even say "liberally) held incipient, procreative power (we talk about "Mother Earth" or "Mother Nature" for a reason, and never more than now), they can be seen as having archetypal, pent-up "rage" like no other.
Enter "Mamala" to tap into that at the actual top of the ticket, inspiring a fresh iteration of "hope" itself that represents the "identity politics" of literally half the world AND doesn't lead with destructive vengeance.
Women have always had to naturally have the saner, broader view, pun intended.
The editorial cartoon in the Globe today depicts this brilliantly. Taylor Swift is striding triumphantly and joyously on top of the world with her arms full of astronauts holding MTV awards, leading with a sparkly boot, the sole plastered with a caricature of Donald Trump, his long red tie dribbling down like blood! It's worth looking for.
Margaret Atwood was right, what men fear most is that women will laugh at them.... HA.
I disagree. Consumption habits follow price, cost and regulation. So far, decarbonization and the electrification of the domestic economy with zero or low carbon energy hasn't quite caught up to the power of cheap oil, but it's close. So close, in fact, that Danielle Smith saw how wind and solar were outcompeting her pals in the gas-fired electricity sector and took direct action against them.
Ditto building out transit which could, if allowed to expand to European levels, create more efficient and less costly transportation systems and higher quality urbanism than gas guzzling SUVs and massive freeway networks.
Canada does not have a lot of decent transit or affordable compact EVs; Europe has lots, and China even more. Global car dependency peaked in 2015-17 (Newman Kenworthy) mainly with the build out of mass urban transit in Asia and Europe. China's coal imports peaked a couple of years ago because of their build out of renewables.
There is no excuse to promote the continuation of fossil fuel expansion when their are proven alternatives waiting offstage for governments to promote.
Our problem rests with politicians who decide to stop progress on climate action and the replacement of fossil fuels with clean electricity thar, as it turns out, is more affordable to consumers over time.
Now Jagmeet Singh and the NDP caucus has joined the Poilievre chorus. Shame on him.
"... there are proven alternatives ..."
"... that, as it turns out ..."
[Just renewed my subscription to CNO. Is there an edit button somewhere over the horizon?]
The federal NDP made a huge, tragic mistake when they shamefully cast Tom Mulcair aside as leader of the party. Then they further compounded that mistake, in my opinion, by electing Jagmeet Singh as the new leader of the party over Charlie Angus. I’ve always found Singh’s three piece suits and expensive Rolex watch a glaring contradiction for the leader of the “people’s party” (I’m not talking about the ultra-right wing People’s Party of Canada either).
Now Jagmeet Singh and the federal NDP are apparently ditching their support for the carbon tax, seemingly due to the unfortunate success of Pierre Poilievre’s nonsensical, false information campaign against the carbon tax. Worse than that is Singh’s parroting of Poilievre’s false narrative about how the average Canadian citizen is worse off because of the carbon levy despite ample evidence to the contrary. And just like Poilievre, Jagmeet Singh makes no mention of the rebates which benefit the average Canadian over the wealthy.
I also find Jagmeet Singh’s constant references to corporate greed rather tiresome. Not that corporate greed doesn’t need to be addressed, but it’s not the only reason for some of the problems facing our society. (Unions are also guilty of being greedy and myopic at times, but that reality doesn’t exist in Singh’s view of the world). Our collective societal greed in general is an enormous obstacle to creating a better, sustainable and more equitable society. It’s up to every Canadian to make knowledgeable changes in their lifestyle choices in order to lessen their carbon footprint so that our descendants aren’t faced with the disastrous consequences of runaway climate change. That’s what Jagmeet Singh should be talking about rather than jumping onto the Pierre Poilievre bandwagon.
I would have liked to share this excellent column on Mastodon but you only offer X or LinkedIn.
We seem to lack political leaders who actually recognize the current moment for what it is and have an idea that the way forward is not more of the status quo. Mr. Singh's quote:
"We want to see an approach to fighting the climate crisis where it doesn’t put the burden on the backs of working people."
is populist malarky; every one of us will be sharing whatever consequences, burdens and benefits both, arise from actually doing something meaningful to ensure the ongoing viability of the biosphere-as-we-know-it.