this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
27 points (90.9% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
343 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Universities


๐Ÿ’ต Finance / Shopping


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

TLDR: PBO issued a report (due to an "error") that suggested carbon pricing has a negative economic impact than doing nothing. This error was discovered by third party experts and public critics only upon its release. The premise of "doing nothing" having lower economic costs is false because increased carbon emissions have economic costs, and Canada in breach of global carbon reduction agreements it signed up to has trade and economic costs. None of which PBO accounted for in its erroneous analysis. PBO further states that the government has its own analysis of carbon pricing but he doesn't have the authority to release it.

This sounds to me like PBO is sabotaging the government on this policy issue, 1st by attempting to show that carbon pricing had negative economic impact, and 2nd by suggesting government is withholding its own analysis.

[โ€“] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That an unelected person or department that's part of our federal services has had and will have such a huge effect on this country's politics for several years, the next federal election, and this country's ability to respond to the growing climate crisis is a cause for concern regarding the integrity of our democracy. An investigation is warranted

[โ€“] villasv@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's understandable that this person has this much influence, even though it's not an elected position. But I do agree that the PBO tone and positioning is very worrying. There's clearly some agenda in there and the man felt he had something to gain in this biased report. 100% influence peddling, though this is usually hard to prove.

[โ€“] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

Itโ€™s understandable that this person has this much influence, even though itโ€™s not an elected position.

Unelected parliamentary bodies are supposed to support transparency, fairness, and debate - they're not supposed to take a prominent role in shaping policy and communicating it to the public. I think it's good that the PBO issues reports from a supposedly non-partisan perspective, but I don't think it's good how little oversight they themselves receive, as this incident reveals. The Government and Opposition (or all parties) should get advance copies of the PBO's reports for public consumption, and the published reports should include that commentary from the Government, Opposition, and/or all parties

load more comments (2 replies)