It isn't UBI and it isn't revenue neutral. It's a revenue-generating tax that makes most families poorer.
> "When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” PBO Yves Giroux said in a statement following release of the report. “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.”
Which means the grants should be increased. But for some reason you’ll mostly hear from the anti-carbon-tax lobby.
But if you want to see who’s truly a net winner or loser, if the rich lose more than the poor lose, the poor are still be better off if they’re net recipients of government services.
Your quote is referring to modelling from 2030 when the carbon tax rises to $170/tCO2e. That's a reasonably high carbon tax and I'm not surprised that it would be costing households on average. It would be much cheaper to just burn fossil fuels unabated, but only if your modelling doesn't include a dollar figure on the negative externalities of CO2 emissions.
> "When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” PBO Yves Giroux said in a statement following release of the report. “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.”
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/guilbeault-defends-carbon-pr...
> In provinces where the fee is levied, 90% of the revenues are returned to tax-payers.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada