Skip to content

Why so much anger?

The politicians may call it what they want. It’s a fee, a levy or a tax. We see it as a tax.

The politicians may call it what they want. It’s a fee, a levy or a tax. 

We see it as a tax. 

Naturally, we’re talking about the imposition of a carbon tax posted in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the same time provincial environment ministers were meeting with their federal counterpart, to discuss carbon reduction strategies and how big a role Canada will play in reducing greenhouse gases on the global scale. 

The PM, without any advance warning, placed a carbon tax evaluation of $10 a tonne, escalating to $50 a tonne by 2022. 

On first blush, the evaluation and target dates appear to be reasonable while setting the stage for some incentives to be deployed by the provinces. 

So why did Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and a few other provincial leaders hit the boiling point so quickly?

Well, for starters, being blindsided is not a good thing. 

Secondly, it seems that capturing carbon dioxide like Saskatchewan is doing at Boundary Dam … removing 800,000 tonnes of CO2 yearly, will not be considered a mitigation measure under the Trudeau plan. 

That fact that Saskatchewan moved the carbon reduction process well past the planning stages and into an actual project and program over a year ago, seems to matter not for those who are going to measure results for federal reportage. 

Apparently, a technological solution to GHG emission reduction such as Boundary Dam’s carbon capture island, can’t or won’t be slotted into the two federal price-based plans of having a carbon tax or a cap and trade program. Coal, bad. Solar, good. End of discussion. 

Trudeau claims the plan is revenue neutral. 

It is, for his government, and so it needs to be. 

But it won’t be for the Saskatchewan taxpayer. 

By the time the federal plan is fully implemented, we’ll be paying well over $1,500 each for the privilege of reducing our one-tenth of one percent of North American carbon emissions, while China and India point their fingers at us, attempting to suppress their laughter.

Yes, the tax collected can be used as a rebate to the taxpayer, (fat chance), or it can be used to advance educational programs or health-care models. It could be used to advance another model of greenhouse gas reductions and research since the model SaskPower and the provincial government had already chosen, five years ago, will not be recognized by the measuring and accountability body that will oversee the federally imposed mess. 

So that is probably why Wall and his counterparts are seething.

Saskatchewan will be punished for being pro-active and will instead be labelled as a laggard in the CO2 elimination file and rogues by the rest of the country because we are unwilling to play ball according to the Trudeau rules. 

It seems the provincial agricultural community isn’t too enamoured with the federal plan either. They see all kinds of unfair assessments and pitfalls coming into play as the regulation-makers in central Canada will again, fail to recognize that a litre of gas being burned to commute to the pencil and paper job in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto is different from the litre of gasoline being burned to bring in 40 bushels of red spring wheat near Lampman, Sask. One is an expense, the other is an investment, and it seems the people who are making the investments are about to be punished. 

Ottawa needs to be reminded that it’s tough to bike to work when you have to get to Alameda from Arcola on January 19. Our public transit system doesn’t work the same as it does in Hamilton or Mississauga. Nor does our carbon capture plan.