Alberta
Another Blow To The Carbon Tax
From Project Confederation
By Josh Andrus
Five years ago, I announced the launch of Project Confederation on Danielle Smith’s CHQR 770 radio show.
That interview changed my life forever.
The project launch was driven by a belief that federal policies – including, but not limited to, the carbon tax – were unfairly targeting Alberta and our economy.
Five years later, we find ourselves opening the next chapter of a long-running saga.
Slowly but surely, Canadians – not just Albertans – have worked out that carbon tax doesn’t make sense, doesn’t work, and isn’t constitutional.
And as the public backlash to the carbon tax grew, the federal government compromised the policy even further, making it even more unpopular and even less constitutional.
On Tuesday, Danielle Smith, now Alberta Premier, announced that her government is going to court to challenge the constitutionality of Ottawa’s selective carbon tax exemption on home heating oils.
The carbon tax, of course, is the levy charged for fuel and combustible waste as outlined in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and its regulations.
The carbon tax is a tax on everything.
Every product you consume relies on energy-intensive steps in the production cycle – whether it’s the combines harvesting crops, commercial trucks transporting goods, or the electricity powering lights and refrigeration at the grocery store, just to name a few.
This drives costs up throughout the production process in virtually every industry.
The carbon tax also serves as the flagship policy of the Liberal-NDP coalition government, which took office following the 2019 election – just two days before my first appearance on Danielle Smith’s show.
In the eyes of the federal government, the carbon tax represents a beacon to the world, signalling Canada’s new global position as a green, socialist utopia.
In the eyes of the voters, it represents a symbol of the Trudeau government’s unpopularity, a major contributor to ongoing affordability problems and a sluggish economy.
In the eyes of the provinces, it is a clear violation of provincial jurisdiction.
The Act requires provinces to establish these punitive carbon taxes, and if they don’t, the Act allows for Ottawa to impose carbon pricing.
When it was introduced, it faced immediate legal challenges from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.
They were joined in opposition to the law by Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick – meaning that six provinces, making up over 80% of the Canadian population, believed the carbon tax was a violation of provincial jurisdiction.
The provinces contended that natural resources fall under provincial authority, and that the carbon tax essentially imposes a levy on resource development.
Ottawa, however, argued that climate change constitutes a national crisis and thus falls under federal responsibility.
In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government – on the premise that it could be applied as a “minimum national standard.”
“This is in fact the very premise of a federal scheme that imposes minimum national standards: Canada and the provinces are both free to legislate in relation to the same fact situation but the federal law is paramount.”
Just two years later, the Liberal-NDP coalition completely abandoned the minimum national standard by granting a carbon tax carve-out to home heating oils.
Here’s the catch.
In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, less than one percent of households use home heating oils to keep their homes warm during cold weather.
That number rises to seven percent in New Brunswick, eighteen percent in Newfoundland and Labrador, thirty-two percent in Nova Scotia and forty percent in Prince Edward Island.
The carbon tax had become such an unpopular policy in Atlantic Canada that the Liberals, trying to stop their collapsing poll numbers, decided to try and regain some votes in the region.
If that weren’t enough, the Liberal government blatantly admitted that the decision was political.
On CTV’s Question Period, Rural Economic Development Minister Gudie Hutchings said “I can tell you, the (Liberal) Atlantic caucus was vocal with what they’ve heard from their constituents, and perhaps they need to elect more Liberals in the Prairies so that we can have that conversation, as well.”
So much for the “minimum national standard.”
Immediately, the constitutionality of the carbon tax was called into question.
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said the move was “not about fairness or about families, it’s only about votes.”
Moe moved swiftly, announcing that SaskEnergy – the Crown corporation that supplies natural gas to residents – would no longer collect or remit the carbon tax on home heating bills in Saskatchewan.
In a misguided effort to curry political favour in the Atlantic provinces, the Liberals have completely compromised the legal standing of the carbon tax and opened the door for provinces to explore new legal avenues against their signature policy.
Now, the Alberta government is seizing that opportunity by filing an application for judicial review of the exemption with the Federal Court, requesting a declaration that the exemption is “both unconstitutional and unlawful.”
“Albertans simply cannot stand by for another winter while the federal government picks and chooses who their carbon tax applies to,” Smith said in a statement. “Since they won’t play fair, we’re going to take the federal government back to court.”
Minister of Justice Mickey Amery added that:
“This exemption is not only unfair to the vast majority of Canadians, but it is also unlawful as the federal government does not have the authority to make special exemptions for certain parts of the country under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.”
“The federal government isn’t even following its own laws now. Someone needs to hold them accountable, and Alberta is stepping up to do just that.”
The carbon tax has always been unfair to western Canadians, where households use more energy per capita, thanks to our geography and climate.
In a press conference, Danielle Smith went further, saying:
“We’re calling on (the federal government) to repeal the carbon tax. We’ve been calling for that for years. The retail carbon tax is just punitive to taxpayers. It’s punitive to consumers.”
We agree.
It adds an additional expense at every level of the economy, affecting everything from home heating to transportation, and it creates an environment of higher prices on the goods and services we all rely on.
It’s time to take the action that should have been taken long ago.
It’s time to repeal the carbon tax.
Please sign this petition and join our effort to hold the federal government accountable:
Once you’ve signed, please share with your friends, family, and every Canadian.
Regards,
Josh Andrus
Executive Director
Project Confederation
From Resource Now
Alberta renews call for West Coast oil pipeline amid shifting federal, geopolitical dynamics.
Just six months ago, talk of resurrecting some version of the Northern Gateway pipeline would have been unthinkable. But with the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. and Mark Carney in Canada, it’s now thinkable.
In fact, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seems to be making Northern Gateway 2.0 a top priority and a condition for Alberta staying within the Canadian confederation and supporting Mark Carney’s vision of making Canada an Energy superpower. Thanks to Donald Trump threatening Canadian sovereignty and its economy, there has been a noticeable zeitgeist shift in Canada. There is growing support for the idea of leveraging Canada’s natural resources and diversifying export markets to make it less vulnerable to an unpredictable southern neighbour.
“I think the world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump got elected in November,” Smith said at a keynote address Wednesday at the Global Energy Show Canada in Calgary. “I think that’s changed the national conversation.” Smith said she has been encouraged by the tack Carney has taken since being elected Prime Minister, and hopes to see real action from Ottawa in the coming months to address what Smith said is serious encumbrances to Alberta’s oil sector, including Bill C-69, an oil and gas emissions cap and a West Coast tanker oil ban. “I’m going to give him some time to work with us and I’m going to be optimistic,” Smith said. Removing the West Coast moratorium on oil tankers would be the first step needed to building a new oil pipeline line from Alberta to Prince Rupert. “We cannot build a pipeline to the west coast if there is a tanker ban,” Smith said. The next step would be getting First Nations on board. “Indigenous peoples have been shut out of the energy economy for generations, and we are now putting them at the heart of it,” Smith said.
Alberta currently produces about 4.3 million barrels of oil per day. Had the Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Energy East pipelines been built, Alberta could now be producing and exporting an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. The original Northern Gateway Pipeline — killed outright by the Justin Trudeau government — would have terminated in Kitimat. Smith is now talking about a pipeline that would terminate in Prince Rupert. This may obviate some of the concerns that Kitimat posed with oil tankers negotiating Douglas Channel, and their potential impacts on the marine environment.
One of the biggest hurdles to a pipeline to Prince Rupert may be B.C. Premier David Eby. The B.C. NDP government has a history of opposing oil pipelines with tooth and nail. Asked in a fireside chat by Peter Mansbridge how she would get around the B.C. problem, Smith confidently said: “I’ll convince David Eby.”
“I’m sensitive to the issues that were raised before,” she added. One of those concerns was emissions. But the Alberta government and oil industry has struck a grand bargain with Ottawa: pipelines for emissions abatement through carbon capture and storage.
The industry and government propose multi-billion investments in CCUS. The Pathways Alliance project alone represents an investment of $10 to $20 billion. Smith noted that there is no economic value in pumping CO2 underground. It only becomes economically viable if the tradeoff is greater production and export capacity for Alberta oil. “If you couple it with a million-barrel-per-day pipeline, well that allows you $20 billion worth of revenue year after year,” she said. “All of a sudden a $20 billion cost to have to decarbonize, it looks a lot more attractive when you have a new source of revenue.” When asked about the Prince Rupert pipeline proposal, Eby has responded that there is currently no proponent, and that it is therefore a bridge to cross when there is actually a proposal. “I think what I’ve heard Premier Eby say is that there is no project and no proponent,” Smith said. “Well, that’s my job. There will be soon. “We’re working very hard on being able to get industry players to realize this time may be different.” “We’re working on getting a proponent and route.”
At a number of sessions during the conference, Mansbridge has repeatedly asked speakers about the Alberta secession movement, and whether it might scare off investment capital. Alberta has been using the threat of secession as a threat if Ottawa does not address some of the province’s long-standing grievances. Smith said she hopes Carney takes it seriously. “I hope the prime minister doesn’t want to test it,” Smith said during a scrum with reporters. “I take it seriously. I have never seen separatist sentiment be as high as it is now. “I’ve also seen it dissipate when Ottawa addresses the concerns Alberta has.” She added that, if Carney wants a true nation-building project to fast-track, she can’t think of a better one than a new West Coast pipeline. “I can’t imagine that there will be another project on the national list that will generate as much revenue, as much GDP, as many high paying jobs as a bitumen pipeline to the coast.”
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.
Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.
His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.
On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.
To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.
The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”
Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.
Tegan Hill
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Crime2 days ago
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
-
Addictions2 days ago
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days ago
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
-
Business2 days ago
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Business22 hours agoEU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Courageous Discourse2 days agoHealthcare Blockbuster – RFK Jr removes all 17 members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel!
-
Health1 day agoRFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Immigration2 days agoMass immigration can cause enormous shifts in local culture, national identity, and community cohesion