Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Trudeau’s climate chief threatens Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe for refusing to collect carbon tax

Published

2 years ago

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Moe, however, has refused to be intimidated by Guilbeault’s threats, telling media this week that the carbon tax “is driving inflation and we still are paying a good chunk in other areas and the position from the government of Saskatchewan’s perspective hasn’t changed nor will it change. It should be removed on all products for all.” 

Trudeau’s Liberal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has threatened to take “measures” against the premier of Saskatchewan for refusing to collect the federal carbon tax on home heating in his province. 

On March 4, Guilbeault condemned Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s decision not to collect the carbon tax on home heating in the western province. Moe’s decision came after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government gave a carbon tax exemption on home heating oil, a break that almost exclusively benefits the Liberal voting Atlantic provinces. 

“If Premier Scott Moe decides that he wants to start breaking laws and not respecting federal laws, then measures will have to be taken,” Guilbeault told reporters Monday.  

“We can’t let that happen. What if somebody tomorrow decides that they don’t want to respect other federal laws, criminal laws? What would happen then if a prime minister, a premier of a province, would want to do that?” he questioned, apparently forgetting his own criminal history.  

“It’s irresponsible and it’s frankly immoral on his part,” Guilbeault continued. “We can have disagreements about things like climate change, but to be so reckless is unspeakable, really.”  

Beginning January 1, Saskatchewan stopped collecting the carbon tax on electric and natural gas home heating, a move which has already been shown to have lowered the province’s inflation rate.  

Moe made the announcement in October after Trudeau suspended his carbon tax on home heating oil, which is almost exclusively used in Atlantic Canada to heat homes, and not in his province. 

“I cannot accept the federal government giving an affordability break to people in one part of Canada but not here,” Moe said in a video posted on X at the time. 

Moe promised that if the Trudeau government did not provide the exemption provided to Atlantic Canada to the rest of the nation, he would tell SaskEnergy, the province’s Crown corporation that provides energy to all residents, to stop collecting the carbon tax on natural gas. This, Moe said, would effectively provide “Saskatchewan residents with the very same exemption that the federal government has given heating oil in Atlantic Canada.”  

Moe’s government has gone as far as introducing legislation to back the scrapping of the federal carbon tax on natural gas. The legislation will shield all executives at SaskEnergy from being jailed or fined by the federal government if they stop collecting the tax.  

Despite the popularity and seeming fairness of Moe’s decision, Trudeau’s Liberal government has refused to rule out jail time for Moe if he refuses to collect the carbon tax on home heating. 

Moe, however, has refused to be intimidated by Guilbeault’s threats, telling media this week that the carbon tax “is driving inflation and we still are paying a good chunk in other areas and the position from the government of Saskatchewan’s perspective hasn’t changed nor will it change. It should be removed on all products for all.” 

Additionally, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre pointed out that while Guilbeault challenges Moe for breaking the law by refusing to collect the carbon tax, Guilbeault himself has a history of breaking the law. 

“Guilbeault calls out Saskatchewan’s lawlessness for refusing to collect his carbon tax,” Poilievre posted on X with a photo of Guilbeault being arrested in 2001.  

While a current member of the Trudeau government cabinet, Guilbeault has a history of taking extreme action in the name of the climate.

In 1997, he joined Greenpeace and served for a time as a director and then campaign manager of its Quebec chapter for about 10 years. 

He was arrested many times for environmental protests, the most famous arrest coming after an incident in 2001 when he climbed Toronto’s CN Tower with British activist Chris Holden. The pair hung a banner saying “Canada and Bush — Climate Killers.” 

Greenpeace is a group that advocates for population control in addition to calling for an end to all oil and gas use.

Last month, Guilbeault was publicly ridiculed after he said the federal government would no longer fund any road construction projects and instead funnel the savings to “climate change” projects that promote walking instead of driving. 

However, Guilbeault’s push for “climate change” regulations are consistent with those of Trudeau. Since taking office in 2015, Trudeau has continued to push a radical environmental agenda like the agendas being pushed the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.”

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved. 

The reality of Trudeau’s push for so-called renewable energy showed itself just over a month ago after Alberta’s power grid faced near certain collapse due to a failure of wind and solar power. Many called out the Trudeau government’s green energy agenda that is attempting to phase out carbon-based power in favor of “renewables” as the reason for the near failure. 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
COVID-19 / 2 hours ago

Chris Barber will not see prison time for his role in peaceful Freedom Convoy

COVID-19 / 2 hours ago

Freedom Convoy Sentencing: Lich and Barber escape prison terms but will spend months in house arrest

Crime / 5 hours ago

Canadian Sovereignty at Stake: Stunning Testimony at Security Hearing in Ottawa from Sam Cooper

Energy

BC NDP Premier Opposing a New Oil Pipeline to Tidewater

Published on October 6, 2025

By

Shipping in Canada: Jurisdiction, Interprovincial Relations and the Case of British Columbia Examinied

by EnergyNow Media Staff

Canada’s unique geography gives several provinces access to the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans, making coastal shipping a vital part of the country’s economic infrastructure. For provinces without direct access to tidewater—most notably Alberta and Saskatchewan—gaining access to ports in coastal provinces is critical for exporting goods, especially resources such as oil and gas. The role of coastal provinces, their jurisdiction over ports, and their political stances, particularly in British Columbia, have shaped national debates about energy transport and interprovincial cooperation.

Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here

Why Is Tidewater Access Important?

Provinces like Alberta depend on tidewater access to export oil, gas, and other commodities to global markets. Without pipelines or other transport infrastructure reaching a coastal port, these provinces are limited to domestic markets or reliant on the goodwill and cooperation of coastal neighbours. Tidewater shipping is essential for Canada’s overall economic competitiveness and for provinces whose economies are resource-based.

Jurisdiction Over Coastal Shipping and Ports

Under the Canadian Constitution, ports and shipping fall under federal jurisdiction, particularly when it comes to interprovincial and international trade. However, provincial governments exercise significant regulatory authority over land use, environmental approvals, and infrastructure within their borders—such as pipeline routes and terminal developments. This can give coastal provinces practical leverage to delay, alter, or oppose projects they find objectionable, even if the final decision rests with federal authorities.

Can Coastal Provinces Deny Access?

Legally, provinces cannot outright deny another province access to tidewater for interprovincial trade, as this would contravene the principle of free movement of goods within Canada. The federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate trade and transportation that crosses provincial boundaries. However, provincial governments can impact the process through environmental reviews, local permitting, and political opposition, which can significantly delay or even halt projects. In practice, the cooperation of coastal provinces is essential for the smooth operation of tidewater shipping and the development of infrastructure such as pipelines and terminals.

The NDP Government in British Columbia and Opposition to Oil and Gas Projects

British Columbia, as a coastal province, has played a pivotal role in debates about oil and gas transportation, particularly under New Democratic Party (NDP) governments. The NDP in B.C. has often taken strong positions against large-scale oil and gas projects, citing environmental risks, Indigenous rights, and local opposition.

One of the most prominent examples is the opposition to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The B.C. NDP government, elected in 2017, made the project a focal point of its environmental policy. The government raised concerns about the risk of oil spills, the impact on coastal ecosystems, and the lack of adequate consultation with Indigenous communities. It used its regulatory authority to launch court challenges, tighten environmental standards, and delay provincial permits, even as the federal government asserted its jurisdiction over the project.

Other projects, such as the Northern Gateway pipeline and various LNG (liquefied natural gas) proposals, have faced similar opposition from the B.C. NDP and allied groups. The provincial government has argued that the long-term environmental risks outweigh the short-term economic benefits and has sought to position B.C. as a leader in climate action and sustainable development. Now, British Columbia’s Premier David Eby has stated that any new oil pipeline from Alberta to BC’s west coast should not be allowed and is not in the national interest of Canadians.

Implications for Interprovincial Relations and National Policy

The tension between provincial and federal jurisdiction over tidewater access and energy transport highlights broader questions about Canadian federalism. Coastal provinces have a responsibility to recognize the economic needs of landlocked provinces but also have legitimate interests in protecting their environments and meeting local expectations. The history of B.C.’s NDP government illustrates how provincial politics can shape, challenge, or even block national infrastructure projects, making intergovernmental cooperation and negotiation essential.

Access to tidewater shipping is crucial for Canada’s resource-rich inland provinces, and while federal jurisdiction generally prevails over interprovincial trade, coastal provinces have significant influence over the practicalities of infrastructure development. The NDP government in British Columbia has demonstrated how provincial opposition—grounded in environmental, social, and political concerns—can affect national projects like Trans Mountain. This ongoing dynamic underscores the need for respectful, collaborative approaches to balancing economic development with environmental protection and Indigenous rights in Canada.

Continue Reading

Energy

Ottawa must eliminate harmful regulations to spur private investment in pipelines

Published on October 6, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

The Carney government recently revealed the first five major development projects it deems to be in the “national interest” for fast-tracked assessment and approval. The list includes a liquified natural gas plant expansion in Kitimat, British Columbia, a small modular reactor in Ontario, upgrades to the Port of Montreal, a copper mine in Saskatchewan, and the Red Chris Mine in B.C. But notably, no new oil pipelines made the list. While the government attributes this absence to a lack of private-sector proponents, this reasoning is disingenuous and overlooks how Canada’s regulatory regime creates uncertainty and deters investment in the energy sector.

For context, most of Canada’s energy is produced in the Prairies. Building pipelines to coastal terminals is key to increase access to global markets for oil and natural gas, which are our top exports. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and almost all natural gas exports were headed to a single trading partner, the United States.

In the wake of Trump’s tariffs against Canadian exports, Carney pledged to cut red tape and accelerate major project approvals to diversify our trade. But his government has repealed none of the regulations that create uncertainty, raise compliance costs and deter investment in the energy sector.

Instead, the government introduced Bill C-5, granting cabinet discretionary power to decide which projects undergo full regulatory assessments and which get fast-tracked, based on their perceived contribution to the “national interest.” So rather than providing predictable rules for all entrepreneurs and businesses, Ottawa created an opaque process where companies must lobby cabinet to prove their projects meet subjective criteria to circumvent the laws and regulations that apply to everyone else. This creates more uncertainty, not less.

Meanwhile, the regulatory barriers that discourage private-sector investment in the energy sector remain firmly in place. Take Bill C-69, which introduced vague criteria into the evaluation of major energy projects including the impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors,” leading the legislation to be commonly known as the “no-more pipelines bill.”

Other regulations are similarly designed to reduce the demand for new pipelines either by restricting the use of coastal ports or forcing a curtailment of oil and gas production. Bill C-48, for instance, limits Canadian exports to Asia by banning large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast. And the 2023 methane emissions regulations targeting the oil and gas sector impose costs of more than $100 million to the industry, likely leading to reduced production.

Moreover, last year, Ottawa proposed to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector. Multiple studies from independent organizations indicate this emissions cap will effectively force a reduction in oil and gas production, consequently undermining the case for private investment in more pipelines. If our energy sector is forced to produce less, it’s not clear why more pipelines would be required.

Not surprisingly, Canada has gained a negative reputation for its regulatory barriers. According to a 2023 survey of oil and gas investors, 68 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over environmental regulations deterred investment in Canada. And 59 per cent said the cost of regulatory compliance deterred investment.

These investor concerns reflect a sharp decline in actual investment. Between 2014 and 2023, investment in the energy sector fell from $84.0 billion to $37.2 billion (inflation-adjusted), a drop of 56 per cent.

Rather than relying on a closed-door process where government picks winners and losers, the federal government should establish a transparent and competitive regulatory framework to attract investment. If the Carney government is serious about encouraging private proponents to build pipelines, diversifying exports and unlocking Canada’s potential as a global energy leader, it must eliminate the regulatory hurdles plaguing the energy sector.

Julio Mejia

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X