Story by Aaron Wherry •
When Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault suggested it was "immoral" for the government of Saskatchewan to deliberately defy the federal carbon pricing law, the allegations of hypocrisy followed quickly.
Had Guilbeault himself not been arrested for breaking the law? Hadn't he proudly climbed the CN Tower in 2001 to protest Canadian climate policy?
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre posted a picture of Guilbeault being taken into custody by police in 2011 and later asserted that what was really "immoral" was the Liberal government increasing the carbon tax while also flying to international summits.
But there's much more at stake here than whether Guilbeault has the standing to lecture anyone on the rule of law.
As an environmental activist with Greenpeace in 2011, Guilbeault indisputably broke the law when he scaled the CN Tower in Toronto. He was arrested, charged and punished — receiving a year's probation and a fine. (He also climbed atop the house of Alberta's then-premier Ralph Klein to install solar panels in 2002. Charges reportedly were not pursued on that occasion.)
Greenpeace activists Steven Guilbeault, right, 31, and Chris Holden, 23, are led by officials from the CN Tower in Toronto Monday July 16, 2001. Guilbeault and Holden scaled 346 metres (1,136 ft.) on the world's tallest free-standing structure to protest Canada's role in changing the world's climate.
Guilbeault might defend what he did as an act of civil disobedience. Others might describe it as reckless and dangerous.
But when he broke the law, he did so as a private citizen. And there is a big difference between a private citizen consciously defying the law and a government consciously defying the law. The latter, operating with democratic authority and responsibility, is empowered to enforce laws.
cbc.caGovernment funding deal with Sask. school board association could get teachers back to the negotiating table Duration 2:00 View on Watch
Saskatchewan sends a message
Saskatchewan's government argues that it's fair for it to stop charging the carbon tax on natural gas because the federal government decided last fall to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax for the next three years — a move that was widely seen as an attempt to address public concerns in the Atlantic provinces.
The wisdom and logic of that Liberal decision is at least debatable. And having introduced inconsistency into its carbon-pricing policy, it can be argued the Liberal government invited claims of unfairness. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is hardly alone in complaining about the Liberal government's course of action.
But when a provincial government has a problem with a federal law — a situation that has occurred once or twice in Canada's history — it has valid recourse to the courts, or the ballot box. It can ask judges to overturn the law, or it can ask voters to defeat candidates representing the federal party that introduced the law.
When a government is willing to defy a law, it's fair to ask what message its constituents should take from that. Presumably, the government of Saskatchewan does not want residents of the province to believe its own laws are optional.
"Well, I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to follow what we're doing," Dustin Duncan, the responsible minister in Saskatchewan, told CBC's Power & Politics last week. "But that's how serious we take this in Saskatchewan."
Of course, when people break the law they generally run the risk of being arrested, as Guilbeault learned in 2001. And Duncan has acknowledged there could be "consequences" for his government's actions.
But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government seems disinclined to make this a criminal matter.
"I don't think anyone's talking about putting people in jail," Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told Power & Politics this week.
With an election in Saskatchewan expected this year, that might be depriving Duncan of a photo op he'd be happy to take part in. Indeed, it's hard not to notice that the Saskatchewan government is making this move in an election year — and when polling suggests the race between the Saskatchewan Party and the NDP has narrowed.
But for the sake of its policy — if not the rule of law — the federal government likely has to do something to respond. The only question is how.
What might happen next
The Liberals haven't tipped their hand as yet and it's there's not an obvious playbook for what a federal government should do when a provincial government simply refuses to follow a law — and undercuts a legislated national climate policy in the process.
The federal government can't return money it doesn't receive, so it stands to reason that the rebates sent to Saskatchewan residents could at least be smaller now. But that wouldn't address the fact that the carbon tax is not being applied as it is supposed to be.
Appealing to the courts might be an option. That could put the government of Saskatchewan in the position of defying not just the federal government but a direct ruling or order of the court.
One legal expert told iPolitics last week that the Canada Revenue Agency could be in a position to issue a multimillion-dollar fine against the Saskatchewan government.
The federal government is scheduled to send $2.1 billion to Saskatchewan next year under national health and social transfer programs. Withholding some of that funding might seem like an option, but doing so might also risk widening the conflict and bringing even more politics into what is essentially a legal dispute.
The Liberals perhaps can't afford not to fight, but they could conceivably undercut themselves (and help Moe) if their response seems irrational.
It's notable that neither Ontario and Alberta — two provinces led by premiers who also have attacked the carbon tax — have joined Saskatchewan in defying the federal law. Alberta typically isn't reluctant to pick a fight with Ottawa.
But whenever a line is crossed, the risk is that it will become much easier for others to cross that line in the future. And the next government to ignore the law might be one that Scott Moe or Pierre Poilievre oppose.
Poilievre might reject the carbon tax and he might enjoy needling Guilbeault. But for the sake of precedent — and buttressing his own position on law and order — he has good reasons to make it clear now that laws are still meant to be followed.
Federal natural resources minister says no carbon rebates for Sask. after province says it won't remit levy
SaskEnergy breaking federal emissions law by choosing not to remit levy
Saskatchewan's move to no longer remit the federal carbon levy on natural gas turned into a tit-for-tat of threats Thursday, with Ottawa saying the province's residents will no longer be getting rebates.
Premier Scott Moe shot back by saying Saskatchewan should stop sending Ottawa the levy on everything else.
"If the (federal) government follows through on this threat, they will once again be penalizing Saskatchewan families for wanting to be treated the same as other Canadians," Moe wrote on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
Moe said while the province's natural gas utility, SaskEnergy, has stopped remitting the federal charge, residents are still paying it on gasoline, diesel, propane and other goods.
"If Saskatchewan people stop getting the rebate entirely, Saskatchewan should stop paying the carbon tax entirely," said Moe.
Moe had announced SaskEnergy would stop collecting the carbon price from customers in January, and the province had until Thursday to remit those dollars.
SaskEnergy is breaking federal emissions law by choosing not to remit the levy, which could result in fines or jail time for executives. The Saskatchewan government has passed legislation that aims to shield executives from legal consequences, putting that burden on the province.
'Irresponsible' move, says federal minister
Federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said Saskatchewan's move is reckless, as the law to impose a carbon levy was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
"(It's) irresponsible and almost unheard of in the history of this country," he said in Ottawa.
"Premiers, just like prime ministers, are responsible for passing laws and they expect their citizens to abide by those laws. If you do not have that expectation, you have anarchy."
People in Saskatchewan will no longer get a carbon rebate, he said, because it's difficult to provide rebates when no money is being collected.
"They will no longer get the rebate," Wilkinson said.
"The rebate actually provides more money for most families in Saskatchewan."
A spokesman for Wilkinson later told The Canadian Press the impact on the rebates sent to Saskatchewan is dependent on what money Saskatchewan actually remits to the federal government.
Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani said his job is to uphold the laws of the country.
"I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals about what (Saskatchewan) may or may not do in the future. When they actually take a step like that, we will deal with it accordingly," he said.
Decision made out of fairness, says Duncan
Dustin Duncan, the minister responsible for SaskEnergy, said the provincial government recognizes there may be consequences.
Duncan told reporters in Ottawa the province decided not to remit out of fairness, pointing to a decision Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made when Ottawa exempted home heating oil from the carbon charge, a move that largely benefits Atlantic Canadians.
Trudeau has not done the same for natural gas, used to warm homes on much of the Prairies.
"It's not something I take lightly," Duncan said of his decision.
He said the federal government could still offer a rebate but at a smaller amount, as residents are still paying the levy on the other goods.
"That's the federal government's decision," Duncan said.
"Our view is that if the prime minister thought that a reduction in the carbon tax and a reduction in the rebate for Atlantic Canadians meant that would be a net positive in terms of affordability for those residents, surely the economics should hold true for Saskatchewan."
Moe said Atlantic Canadians are still getting rebates even though those who use home heating oil aren't paying the levies.
Trudeau said Thursday the three-year exemption is meant to help those who use home-heating oil to upgrade to heat pumps, which pollute less.
He added some of the lowest-income Canadians use heating oil.
"Yes, proportionately there's a lot in Atlantic Canada, but they're right across the country," he said.
"This isn't a program for one part of the country versus others."
Duncan said the Canada Revenue Agency has removed SaskEnergy as a registered distributor of natural gas. He said he believes this move ensures he or the province are liable for penalties, not SaskEnergy.
"I think that if those applications had not been successful, then we likely would have been looking at making some sort of payment (to Ottawa)," he said.
The Canada Revenue Agency did not immediately respond when asked about the designation.
Duncan said the average household in Saskatchewan is expected to save about $400 this year as a result of the province no longer collecting the charge on carbon.
He added there is a report from the parliamentary budget officer that says Saskatchewan residents are to pay $600 more in levies.
Wilkinson said the rebate for a family of four in Saskatchewan is $1,500 and for those in rural communities it's $1,800.
No comments:
Post a Comment