When Environment Minister Stephen Guilbeault proposed it,immoral“For the Government of Saskatchewan, knowingly violate federal carbon pricing laws;, suspicion of hypocrisy It soon followed.
Wasn’t Guilbeault himself arrested for breaking the law? Didn’t he proudly climb the CN Tower in 2001 to protest Canada’s climate change policies?
Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poièvre I posted a photo of Guilbeau detained by police since 2011 claimed What was truly “immoral”, he said, was that the Liberal government attended an international summit while increasing carbon taxes.
But there is a much bigger issue at stake here than whether Mr. Guilbeault is qualified to lecture anyone on the rule of law.
Mr. Guilbeault, while working as an environmental activist for Greenpeace, definitely broke the law when he climbed the CN Tower in Toronto in 2011. He was arrested, indicted, and punished — Sentenced to one year’s suspended sentence and fined. (He also climbed to the top of then-Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s house. Installed solar panels in 2002. No charges were reportedly filed at that time. )
Guilbeault may defend his actions as an act of civil disobedience. Others may call it reckless and dangerous.
But when he broke the law, he did it as a civilian. And there is a big difference between a private citizen consciously violating a law and a government consciously violating a law. The latter operates with democratic powers and responsibilities and is empowered to: Force law.
Saskatchewan sends message
The Saskatchewan government maintains it is fair to end the carbon tax on natural gas because the federal government decided to end the tax last fall. Exempt household kerosene from carbon tax for the next three years The move was widely seen as an attempt to address public concerns in the Atlantic Coast region.
The wisdom and logic of that Liberal Party decision is at least debatable. And it could be argued that by introducing contradictions into carbon pricing policy, the Liberal government has invited claims of unfairness. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe isn’t the only one unhappy with the Liberal government’s policies.
But if a provincial government has a problem with federal law, as has happened once or twice in Canadian history, there are effective avenues to go to court or to the ballot box. They could ask judges to overturn the law, or they could ask voters to defeat the candidate representing the Federalist party that introduced the law.
When a government seeks to defy the law, it is natural to ask what message its constituents should take from it. Perhaps the Saskatchewan government doesn’t want its residents to believe that its laws are arbitrary.
Saskatchewan says it will not send its federal carbon tax obligations on home heating fuel to Ottawa. And in what appears to be retaliation, Ottawa says its residents will no longer receive carbon tax refunds.
“Well, I wouldn’t advise anyone to follow what we’re doing,” Dustin Duncan, the minister responsible for Saskatchewan, told CBC. power and politics last week. “But that’s how seriously we take this issue in Saskatchewan.”
Of course, as Guilbeault learned in 2001, breaking the law generally comes with the risk of arrest. And Mr. Duncan admits, “There’s a chance you could get arrested.”result“For the actions of his government.
But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government appears reluctant to make this a criminal matter.
Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson: “I don’t think anyone is talking about putting people in prison.” spoke to Power & Politics this week..
With elections scheduled to take place in Saskatchewan this year, Duncan may be deprived of the photo opportunities he would happily participate in. In fact, it’s hard not to notice that the Saskatchewan government is making this move in an election year. In a public opinion poll, The fight between the Saskatchewan Party and NDP has narrowed..
But the federal government will probably have to do something because of its policies, if not the rule of law. The only question is how.
what happens next
The Liberals have not yet stepped in, and there is also a clear strategy for what the federal government should do if state governments simply refuse to follow the law, undermining enacted national climate policy in the process. do not.
The federal government can’t give back money it doesn’t receive, so it stands to reason that the rebates going to Saskatchewan residents could at least be smaller than they are now. But that does not address the fact that the carbon tax is not being applied as it should be.
Appealing to court may also be an option. In that case, the Saskatchewan government could be placed in a position to defy not only the federal government, but also direct judgments and orders from the courts.
1 legal expert told iPolitics Last week, it was reported that the Canada Revenue Agency could impose a multi-million dollar fine against the Saskatchewan government.
A national issue committee is analyzing Saskatchewan’s refusal to pay its share of carbon taxes and the federal government’s response. Additionally, Conservatives are calling for more transparency regarding the Winnipeg lab leak.
The federal government will send $2.1 billion to Saskatchewan next year under the national health and social transfers program. Withholding some funding may seem like an option, but doing so also risks escalating the conflict and bringing more politics into what is essentially a legal dispute.
The Liberals will probably have no choice but to fight, but they could potentially harm themselves (and help Moe) if their response seems irrational.
Notably, Ontario and Alberta (two provinces led by premiers who have also attacked carbon taxes) have not joined Saskatchewan in defying the federal law. Alberta is generally not reluctant to take on Ottawa.
But each time you cross a line, you run the risk of making it easier for others to cross that line in the future. And the next government to ignore this law could be the one opposed by Scott Moe and Pierre Poièvre.
Mr. Poilievre may veto a carbon tax and enjoy punishing Mr. Guilbeault. But for the sake of precedent and to emphasize his position on law and order, he has good reason to make clear now that the law is still to be followed.
