It was troubling last week when Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau seemed to suggest that provinces could just do their own thing on climate action without much federal involvement other than hand holding. Government action addressing climate change is evolving quickly at the provincial level but that does not absolve the federal government of its responsibility to set a level playing field and spur action.

It would have been great had the federal government implemented a pan-Canadian climate change plan eight years ago — when it promised to. Or better yet 13 years ago, when the Canadian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol. But it’s not too late for the federal government to act, especially given the big advantages to doing so: fairness and effectiveness.

To ensure that carbon pollution from all sources and all provinces decreases over time, a multi-pronged approach is needed. To make such an approach coherent and effective will require the federal government to act in areas where it has jurisdiction and to set common standards for initiatives undertaken at the provincial level.

The federal role should ensure fairness, so that there is a level playing field for all sectors and all provinces. Allowing any sector to avoid reducing its carbon pollution will undermine the final result and the willingness of other sectors to do their fair share.

An effective climate change plan would address all the major sources of carbon pollution, including industry (manufacturing, oil and gas, and others), electricity, transportation, buildings (commercial and residential), agriculture, and waste. Carbon emissions from some of these sectors, like those from oil and gas, are increasing while those from other sectors, like electricity, are declining. The same is true for provinces. Some are increasing emissions while others are squeezing them downward.

Provincial policies to address carbon pollution are still at a nascent stage. And they vary widely. British Columbia’s carbon tax is really the only carbon pricing policy in Canada that could be said to be reducing carbon emissions. It is still too early to evaluate whether Quebec’s cap-and-trade agreement with California will be effective and its small carbon tax has generated some revenue for the government but experts agree that it is too small to reduce emissions.

Alberta’s policy to tax carbon emissions on a per-barrel of oil basis is also small, and since it applies to a small share of Alberta’s total emissions, is ineffective at stimulating pollution reductions. Ontario appears serious about putting a levy on carbon but no one knows yet whether that will be a carbon tax or whether Ontario will join an existing cap-and-trade system.

What would the role of the Canadian government look like? Setting a price on carbon that is roughly equivalent across the country would be a key policy leveller. It is the ingredient that market mechanisms like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system need to have to be fair and effective. A minimum carbon price could be set for the country, with provinces deciding whether they want to match or exceed that level through a carbon tax or a floor price for permits as part of a cap-and-trade system. Any province that establishes such a system would be able to keep the tax revenue.

The federal government would also continue to pass regulations in areas that it has jurisdiction, such as energy efficiency standards for equipment and appliances, fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and carbon pollution levels for electricity generating stations.

All of this could be administered through an approach similar to Canada’s health care system, where clear, minimum standards need to be met for the federal government to transfer resources from the federal budget. In this case, that money could be for clean energy development and sustainable infrastructure projects, such as public transit.

The provinces have taken the lead in Canada on climate change, given a federal government that has gone AWOL on the issue. However, the correct response from our federal parties is to commit to remedying this situation, not to suggest that they will wash their hands of the matter or stand by and whisper encouragement and hope that will be enough.

Tim Gray is executive director of Environmental Defence.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: