Errors in explaining the impact of the carbon tax on inflation shake confidence in Bank of Canada

Sylvain CharleboisThe Bank of Canada’s unconventional approach to communicating its stance on carbon pricing, particularly its sporadic responses on social media, has raised eyebrows.

Its responses tend to delve into semantics rather than directly addressing criticisms. It’s puzzling to witness the Bank of Canada engaging in this manner, as it calls into question its supposed non-partisan and impartial position in the increasingly polarized political debates surrounding the carbon tax.

This strategic blunder underscores the Bank of Canada’s mishandling of its communication related to carbon taxation.

Tiff Macklem Bank of Canada carbon tax

Tiff Macklem

Related Stories
Are carbon taxes a threat to our food supply chain?

Trudeau blinks, suspends carbon tax on home heating in Atlantic Canada

Dissent to Trudeau’s carbon tax growing within Liberal ranks

The saga began in September when Governor Tiff Macklem casually mentioned during a speech in Calgary that the carbon tax contributed to about 0.15 percentage points of inflation without providing supporting data or documentation for this assertion. A similar statement had been made before the finance committee in February, but it hadn’t garnered much attention at the time.

However, after Macklem’s September statement, proponents of the carbon tax began using his assertion as a benchmark to dismiss the concerns of carbon tax critics and convince Canadians that carbon taxing has little or no inflationary impact. Despite the absence of data, models, or comprehensive analysis, many economists rallied behind this assertion.

This issue remained largely unexamined until Dalhousie University requested an explanation. The Bank’s prompt response revealed that the 0.15 ratio only considered three components of the Consumer Price Index – natural gas, heating oil, and gasoline – all of which are retail-taxed items. This estimate failed to account for second-round or pass-through effects across the entire supply chain of other major CPI components, indicating a narrow focus in their calculations.

On Oct. 30, Macklem introduced a new angle, stating that eliminating the carbon tax would lead to a one-time drop of 0.60 percentage points in the inflation rate due to accumulated tax increases over the years. This essentially means that, with our current inflation rate at 3.8 percent, the carbon tax is responsible for 16 percent of inflation.

Although the Governor claimed that this had been the Bank’s message for some time, he had not explicitly disclosed this ratio until now. This statement, due to its vagueness, raises several important questions that demand thorough examination by reporters, intellectuals, and observers.

For instance, it is crucial to understand the specific data and economic models used to arrive at the 0.6 estimate for the impact of eliminating the carbon tax on inflation. Will this estimate change as the carbon tax approaches the $170/mt mark in 2030, nearly triple its current rate? It is equally important to request a breakdown of the assumptions and variables considered in these calculations.

Moreover, sensitivity analysis is vital: how does the estimate respond to changes in key assumptions like the carbon tax level and market dynamics? What historical or international examples support this estimate, and how do they align with the Canadian economic context? Equally important is an inquiry into whether the Bank considered the potential second-order effects of removing the carbon tax, such as changes in energy consumption and production, shifts in investment patterns, or impacts on other industries.

Why hasn’t the Bank analyzed other components of the CPI, such as food, and considered the behavioural changes resulting from fiscal adjustments across the supply chain? Prices undoubtedly influence consumer choices.

The bottom line is that transparency is paramount, and we need clear answers. As Canadians, we must question the data presented to us rather than passively accepting it. Blindly accepting data without scrutiny can lead to disastrous policies. While decarbonizing the economy should be a priority, recent government decisions regarding heating oil tax and rebate enhancements have left many skeptical about the moral authority of carbon taxing. Canadians deserve clarity, especially when the planet’s well-being comes at a cost. We need to know the price tag.

In essence, the carbon tax communication challenges at the Bank of Canada highlight a fundamental misstep – the quantification of the carbon tax. The Bank is now committed to this stance, fully aware of its consequences. It gave a number, and it is too late now.

In the meantime, the Bank of Canada should refrain from participating in political discussions on social media or any other platform. Doing otherwise will only impact its credibility, making it appear as a crown corporation trying to control the narrative.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

For interview requests, click here.

The opinions expressed by our columnists and contributors are theirs alone and do not inherently or expressly reflect the views of our publication.

© Troy Media
Troy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.