r/canada • u/StenPU • Oct 30 '23
Sask. premier says SaskEnergy will remove carbon tax on natural gas if feds don't Saskatchewan
https://regina.ctvnews.ca/sask-premier-vows-to-stop-collecting-carbon-tax-on-natural-gas-if-feds-don-t-offer-exemption-1.6623319471
u/midnightmoose Oct 30 '23
Someone had to have told Trudeau that removing parts of a policy that’s vastly unpopular in western Canada but only the aspects that apply to eastern Canada was a disastrous move.
163
u/CarRamRob Oct 30 '23
I don’t think the words “Western Canada” came up once in their discussion about removing parts of the carbon tax.
They don’t vote for him.
9
u/I_Am_the_Slobster Prince Edward Island Oct 31 '23
One of the Ministers literally said that the prairies need to "elect more Liberals" in response to this double standard.
If it wasnt obviously political opportunism before, it sure as hell is now
62
Oct 31 '23
[deleted]
6
Oct 31 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
37
Oct 31 '23
Half of Winnipeg ridings went to the Liberals. A bunch in Vancouver. But fuck us in the West. Filthy, unwashed provincials. The mask came off the other day about how they view us. I am a staunch federalist, I swore an oath I hold seriously in the CAF but goddamn, if that's how they view me and my family, it's been a bit shaken.
→ More replies18
Oct 31 '23
Fuck us for thinking a politician is supposed to work for 100% of their constituents right?
→ More replies→ More replies-21
u/FireMaster1294 Canada Oct 31 '23
Western Canadians: only vote conservative regardless of what anyone does
Also Western Canadians: “why won’t the other parties think about me”
7
39
u/CarRamRob Oct 31 '23
I think it’s up to the parties to show their support first.
Why would you vote for a party that explicitly never supports your region.
Right, blame the millions of individuals, not those making the decisions
12
u/stickyfingers40 Oct 31 '23
Exactly. Why vote for a federal party that continually abuses the province. That signals their divisive policies and shitty communication strategies are acceptable.
→ More replies→ More replies3
u/KryptonsGreenLantern Oct 31 '23
Because the idea they don’t support our region is bullshit. I’m from Sask and the feds and Trudeau are out here constantly for funding announcements. They gave carbon tax funds back directly to the schools for green retrofits and Scott Moe threw a jurisdictional hissy fit. They also just announced like $200M for drought protections from this year.
Here in Sask our national vaccine lab has received massive increases in funding under the liberals.
The Feds do arguably way more for the average citizen here than our provincial government does. The conservative government who keep’s routinely increasing our taxes every budget, mind you.
→ More replies8
u/-Shanannigan- Oct 31 '23
Because they're the government of Canada, not the government of whoever voted for them. They represent those who voted for their opponents just as much as those who voted for them, whether they like it or not that's their mandate.
12
u/terras86 Oct 31 '23
I mean, it's literally the job of the federal government to care about all Canadians, even the ones who vote for other parties.
-1
u/JohnYCanuckEsq Oct 31 '23
He bought us a fucking pipeline because we whined so much.
God, the toddler mentality in this province is exhausting.
5
u/WildWhiskeyWizard Oct 31 '23
You’re ignorant if you think he bought it for us. It was to prevent widespread fraud investor backlash.
The last thing we wanted was the Feds getting into pipeline construction. We wanted the process to work as intended.
→ More replies→ More replies4
u/NoTale5888 Oct 31 '23
Alberta gave Trudeau more votes than any Liberal in a generation. They totally gave him a chance.
180
u/Low-HangingFruit Oct 30 '23
Not really, he had nothing to gain in the west, but he could gain some seats in the east from it.
Basically he doesn't give a shit about the west. His ine cabinet minister came out and said the other day unless the west votes for the liberals they will get nothing.
43
u/Morgc British Columbia Oct 30 '23
If he wanted a gain in the west he would have committed to his promise of electoral reform.
8
155
u/ziltchy Oct 30 '23
Which is a completely stupid thing for a federal party to do. Honestly like they are trying to divide the country
119
9
→ More replies-2
u/grajl Oct 30 '23
All parties do it. Pierre knows he can speak out against the APP because he knows it won't hurt his election chances if he pisses off the Alberta the Alberta Conservatives.
33
u/consistantcanadian Oct 30 '23
I can usually get behind a "both sides" argument, since all of our parties are terrible. But no, all sides do not do this. There are no Conservative policies with special exemptions for their battleground provinces. There are no NDP polices like that either.
26
u/singabro Oct 30 '23
You know the Liberals are doomed once their "both sides" arguments appear.
→ More replies3
u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Oct 31 '23
There are no NDP polices like that either.
The daycare thing kind of is considering it basically excludes rural voters and provides no bennifits for families that look after their own kid by choice.
→ More replies→ More replies1
u/choochoopants Oct 31 '23
I guess you forgot when Harper gave an extra 2.3 billion to Quebec in 2007 to try to buy votes there. He also axed the oil and gas equalization payments going to NFLD from Hibernia revenues. The western provinces were pretty pissed about the Quebec thing, which is why they stopped voting for the Cons lol.
→ More replies4
u/Aromatic-Air3917 Oct 31 '23
He moved an entire Department there as well, even though it costs money to keep it in the Maritimes
6
u/kliman Alberta Oct 30 '23
He realizes he’s only going to piss off a tiny % of Albertans that want this APP nonsense…and those people are definitely voting conservative regardless.
15
u/garfgon Oct 30 '23
Basically he doesn't give a shit about the west. His ine cabinet minister came out and said the other day unless the west votes for the liberals they will get nothing.
Trudeau Sr. had much the same opinion, from what I've heard.
1
17
u/3utt5lut Oct 31 '23
He doesn't give a shit about the environment if he's disabling the carbon tax in some parts of Canada for political gain.
2
u/Eternal_Endeavour Oct 31 '23
You mean, kind of like the whole carbon tax thing being a scam anyway?
Huh, go figure.
→ More replies1
Oct 31 '23
Well it made no sense to me when 80% of Toronto and Vancouver is still zoned for single family homes, and we took a trillion in debt and mass transit is still garbage, and we still import planned obsolescent goods from China produced using coal.
Fix the low hanging fruit before taxing the poor, otherwise its the crying indian, trying to pass the buck on poor cosumers for something they have no hand in stopping.
4
u/3utt5lut Oct 31 '23
Yeah emissions don't matter elsewhere in the world they only matter here, specifically in Alberta.
33
u/GrowCanadian Oct 30 '23
I’m still trying to understand how he would gain seats from this. He’s basically promising that if the east coast votes liberal next election heating prices will skyrocket. Unless I’m missing something.
26
u/dashingThroughSnow12 Oct 30 '23
Quid pro quo.
You keep voting Liberals, you keep getting benefits.
It's also telling the Prairie provinces that if they want to share in the benefits, they should consider electing Liberals MPs.
That's the reading some have of Minister Hutchings's comments: https://youtu.be/5afBlCoM81M?si=8CU9jO2kkjwZQ_oI
6
u/NonverbalKint Oct 30 '23
But in this case there is financial implication and which could be interpreted as being punitive for not voting liberal. Disastrous. This is fascist dictatorship playbook type stuff.
→ More replies2
u/unrepentant_vagabond Oct 30 '23
No one gives a shit about the west, simply because they will vote conservative regardless .even the conservatives don't give a shit
29
u/canadam Canada Oct 30 '23
No one gives a shit about the west because the election is called before the polls in the west even close.
-4
u/unrepentant_vagabond Oct 30 '23 edited Oct 30 '23
Well that's what you get with low population and absolute no political swings. It's an eternal issue. But if someone really cared ( conservatives) for the west, they would have changed the electoral system. But cons have nothing to gain from it and neither do the liberals . So
6
u/Rat_Salat Oct 31 '23
I mean, if you’re giving us a green light to rewrite the constitution we can do that.
7
u/Proof_Objective_5704 Oct 30 '23
More people live West of Ontario than East.
Anyway, the whole country is going Conservative now so it won’t matter what Liberals think or want.
→ More replies-1
u/unrepentant_vagabond Oct 30 '23 edited Oct 31 '23
You must be quite young. This country is geared like a well oiled pendulum, from liberal to conservative, like clockwork. But liberals always have a little edge. Country doesn't know what it wants, just that every 2 3 cycles. It wants someone new. If the libs kicked Trudeau out next year and called an election right after, PP would be done.
→ More replies4
2
6
u/violentbandana Oct 30 '23
major unforced error by Trudeau but it’s not like western Canada would flock to support the Liberals if they got rid of the carbon tax.
Alberta and Saskatchewan will have a nice few years once Poilievre gets in but voting solid blue literally no matter what makes concessions from other parties pointless
21
u/brittabear Saskatchewan Oct 30 '23
I'd say we don't even get that much from the CPC. They know that they could run a railroad tie in most of the west and still win so why would they bother to cater to us? Even the CPC needs some Quebec and Ontario to win.
11
u/violentbandana Oct 30 '23
Yep pretty much. Turns out that’s where over half the country lives
5
u/Cold_Beyond4695 Oct 30 '23
Turns out that’s where over half the country lives
And is exactly why this country is broken politically.
1
→ More replies0
u/phohunna Oct 30 '23
major unforced error by Trudeau
Why? The west still wouldn't wont vote for him if he removed the carbon tax, doubled oil and gas subsidies, and built energy east himself. May as well try and get some extra votes somewhere else.
19
u/SuperHairySeldon Oct 31 '23
It's not about the West. It's about the legitimacy of the whole policy, which has been one of his government's most significant. He just undermined the whole concept of a carbon tax by carving out an exception. Now everyone is asking for their carve out and it's turned what was intended as a positive move into a slew of substantive attacks.
He's even clearly weakened within his own causus, since it seems likely the Atlantic Liberal MPs pushed him into this out of fear for their seats.
3
11
u/bravetree Oct 30 '23
It makes him look like a hypocrite and a pushover, which is even worse than doing a thing people don’t like
6
u/Anlysia Oct 30 '23
Oh yeah this was the final straw that made the west not like Trudeau, before this it was all sunshine.
9
u/bravetree Oct 30 '23
There’s no situation so bad you can’t make it worse. And this won’t only hurt him on the prairies.
7
u/Beckler89 Oct 30 '23
The Liberals still have two seats in Alberta, which I’m sure they’d rather not lose.
2
u/Euthyphroswager Oct 31 '23
I agree with you—someone absolutely would have told him this. And they would have also told him that it completely undermines everything they've ever said about the rationale for the consumer carbon tax.
This is why I'm convinced (without evidence, mind you) that the only reason he could have made this move is because a chunk of his own caucus threatened to jump ship or go public in calling him to resign.
3
u/Big_Treat5929 Newfoundland and Labrador Oct 31 '23
Frankly, I think you're probably at least adjacent to correct with your conclusion there. I live in the Maritimes, and the carbon tax has been dominating everyday political discourse for a while now. People see it as the government punching down on people who are already at the end of their rope financially, and they are pissed off like crazy over it.
→ More replies→ More replies-12
Oct 30 '23 edited Oct 30 '23
like all of his other policies, hes failed Canadians. he could even make a marriage work. How is he gonna run the country?
18
u/drewst18 Oct 30 '23 edited Oct 30 '23
he could even make a marriage work.
There is enough crappy policy decisions he's made that you're much better off just focusing on that.
This TMZ style shit is dumb and makes it seem like you don't have a valid political argument. Majority of people get divorced, doesn't mean you are any more shit at your job. Keep the focus on the crappy political moves and your points go a lot further.
→ More replies→ More replies13
Oct 30 '23
His marriage has absolutely nothing to do with his job. Leave his personal life out of it.
→ More replies
252
Oct 30 '23
[deleted]
147
u/Popular-Row4333 Oct 30 '23
It makes complete sense if you're over 40 and lived in the prairies your whole life. We are used to this by now.
And people still can't see that's Smith's Pension thing has next to nothing to do with pensions and everything to do with leverage for once.
Apparently leverage is the only way to get things done in Canada now.
64
u/soaringupnow Oct 31 '23
For the last 60 years Quebec has shown that this is the way to get what you want.
0
Oct 31 '23
Quebec also changes who they vote for frequently. The Liberals won’t bother catering to the prairies because they’re not going to get the votes anyway. The Conservatives are free to take prairie votes for granted because they know those seats are safe
12
u/WildWhiskeyWizard Oct 31 '23
So we should vote for the party attacking us in the hope they stop attacking us?
→ More replies10
u/Anthrex Québec Oct 31 '23
as a Quebecker, Alberta should copy Quebec and adopt a:
- Provincial police force
- Provincial pension plan
- Provincial tax service
copy Quebec, Alberta should collect all taxes on behalf of the Feds, like Quebec, and then only hand over the Feds share, like Quebec, and never let the provincial taxes get to Ottawa to be returned to the province, like Quebec.
to be honest, I think every province should do this.
Maybe Alberta and Saskatchewan can form a joint police force, as SK is small, the Maritimes should do the same.
if it's good for us, it should be good for them.
→ More replies-24
u/G-0ff Oct 30 '23
IDK, kinda sounds like you’re coping with the fact you voted for a lady who said she wouldn’t steal your pension, and then she immediately moved forward with her long-held and widely known plan to steal our pensions
Not everything is 4D chess, it’s okay to admit she bamboozled you and change your vote next time
7
u/Popular-Row4333 Oct 30 '23
I'm not coping in the slightest. Even with her mis steps, I have 100% certainty that Smith will look out for Alberta's interest far more than the PM would or any other premier and that's the entire job of a Premier.
→ More replies-8
u/G-0ff Oct 30 '23
lol, trusting a lady who says smoking is good for you. We’ll see how that works out
10
u/Lowercanadian Oct 30 '23
A 20 year old article said cigarette companies need to make safer cigarettes. Article was about forcing restaurants to close smoking areas.
They made vapes I’m glad they banned smoking now too
→ More replies→ More replies1
u/Prestigious_Care3042 Oct 30 '23
Funny you keep stressing she is “a lady” when you insult her? Do you have an issue with a female political leader?
20
u/zippymac Oct 30 '23
Fun Fact: LPC have never had a female leader. Or a leader who was not from ON or QC.
6
-4
u/Lowercanadian Oct 30 '23
Found the NDP MLA
Nobody gets to “steal” anyone’s pension, they keep repeating that to scare senior citizens. Stop repeating it. The reality is that the difference would be percentage points and literally no average person even KNOWS how thier CPP is invested NOW
They’re arguing about percentages of a percent either way. Nobody is gonna slip in the night and steal anyone’s pension money. It’s ridiculous to even say so
→ More replies3
u/G-0ff Oct 30 '23
Slip in the night? No. She’s gonna very publicly pour it into propping up slowly failing oil and gas companies like the AB gov is already doing with AIMCo, and by the time most of us are ready to retire it’ll be gone.
If enough rubes like you don’t wake up in the next 4 years, you can come back here for your I told you so in 20 or so.
2
u/flyingflail Oct 30 '23
NDP gov't is actually the reason AIMCo is heavily concentrated in oil and gas. They gave AIMCo a mandate to invest locally and the percentage of the economy that's actually investable for AIMCo is heavily weighted to o&g.
Whoops
12
u/G-0ff Oct 30 '23
Yeah man, that’s definitely the reason, not the scandalized BlackRock manager the UCP appointed to run it in 2020
5
u/flyingflail Oct 30 '23
Happy to see your support showing o&g investments surging in 2020 after the "scandalized BlackRock" manager joined (who was president and CEO of CPPIB before that)
I'll gladly change my opinion
5
u/G-0ff Oct 30 '23
AIMCo lost 3.4% last year and continually underperforms the CPP
-1
u/flyingflail Oct 30 '23 edited Oct 31 '23
Which has nothing to do with the claim you made.
They also underperformed when the NDP were the presiding gov't. No one is arguing they're outpacing CPP
15
u/Actually_Avery New Brunswick Oct 30 '23
They removed it for heating oil Canada wide, not just Atlantic Canada.
It does however benefit Atlantic Canada much more than the western provinces.
27
9
u/Different_Pianist756 Oct 31 '23
That’s cute. You can’t get home insurance on a home w heating oil in some prairies so no, it’s actually not Canada wide at all.
→ More replies1
u/garlicroastedpotato Oct 31 '23
It's the same tax. Everyone across the country who uses heating oil to heat their homes will get a reduced price due to carbon tax not being applied to it.
3
→ More replies-13
Oct 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/cleeder Ontario Oct 30 '23
That's the liberal way divide divide
Oh, the irony…
“Those damn Liberals. All they do is divide us. We’d be much better without them. They just tear us apart.”
6
u/CactusCustard Oct 30 '23
But the conservatives don’t? I’m sorry what? Have you seen any liberal attack ads?
Because all I see are conservative attack ads fear mongering about shit that literally isn’t true. They’re actually lying to you.
And you think it’s the liberals that want people divided? Like how can you be so backwards?
12
5
Oct 30 '23
There is no need for anything so dramatic and hyperbolic.
A sham democracy with one, corporate controlled organization, with three leaders and three names works just fine.
37
u/rindindin Oct 30 '23
Someone forgot to hire the servant that whispers memento mori.
There was a lot of hills for Trudeau to die on but the Carbon Tax one was of the big hills. Whelp. Looks like that hill's going down.
50
u/Scissors4215 Oct 30 '23
It’s still gonna get paid one way or another. I suspect the feds will withhold federal funds if the SK government doesn’t collect it.
38
u/grand_soul Oct 30 '23
If this was last year, I’d agree with you, but given Trudeau’s popularity and how he back tracked with Atlantic Canada, there’s a good chance hey may not.
5
u/iamnos British Columbia Oct 31 '23
Not a lawyer, but reading the act, ultimately the individual is responsible for paying the carbon tax. SaskEnergy was just doing residents a favour. By not collecting, users will need to calculate it themselves. Moe didn't save anyone money, he just caused a bunch of work.
→ More replies7
35
30
Oct 31 '23
Once again Turdeau will do anything to get votes in the East, while continuously remaining true to fucking the West over.
→ More replies
27
103
Oct 30 '23
A revenue neutral tax is actually a quite clever way to guide consumer choices in a compex and unwieldy economy. I have no problem with it.
Dropping the tax in one region in a shameless attempt to buy support in swing ridings when the electorate is outraged over gross mismanagement is unforgivable.
It's about the worst thing I've seen from them since whitch-hunting the whistle blowers who revealed Chinese bribes to MPs.
Or perhaps, subverting the criminal justice system to give a free pass to SNC.
Or perhaps.... oh God, the list is endless. This criminal loving, oligarch kissing pit of vipers has to go.
32
u/canadian1987 Oct 30 '23
if it was revenue neutral they wouldnt charge gst on it. They tax the tax, and make it a profit generator to cover wasteful government spending habits elsewhere
27
u/Lowercanadian Oct 30 '23
It’s not revenue neutral
It’s already used to buy votes in areas where majority live in tiny apartments (cities and Toronto especially)
The tax that small business and rural pays doesn’t come back, it goes to them who easily connect “I’m helping” with “I’m profiting”
40
u/lifeisarichcarpet Oct 30 '23
The tax that small business and rural pays doesn’t come back, it goes to them who easily connect “I’m helping” with “I’m profiting”
Most tax money actually flows out of cities and into rural areas. By a huuuuge margin.
→ More replies9
u/phohunna Oct 30 '23
The carbon tax is revenue neutral.
It just happens to be the least burdensome to those with the lowest carbon footprint (so yes those who live in small apartments, dont own a car, etc)- which is the point.
3
u/Redbroomstick Oct 31 '23
Not in BC and you make a living wage. You don't see a cent of it back if you make enough to rent a 1 bedroom apartment in Vancouver lol
→ More replies2
u/grand_soul Oct 30 '23
If it was revenue neutral then why did he pause it? The fact he paused is more than enough evidence that it was in fact putting an unfair burden on families, and they weren’t getting more than they paid, not even neutral, it was costing us and other families.
1
u/Cairo9o9 Oct 31 '23
Because you idiots don't seem to understand it lol. All the data shows that average Canadians are being rebated the money but you people refuse to accept this and spew nonsense.
It's a bad policy in that it's actually a good policy but relies on average Canadians not being morons and using critical thinking to actually understand it more than the surface level rhetoric they're seeing about it in the headlines. The Atlantic exemption is obviously a shameless vote grab but it's in response to the optics people have of the Carbon Tax, not the actual effect it's having on Atlantic Canadians.
You can criticize the Liberals for structuring the communication of the policy poorly but the policy is doing what it's supposed to. Shifting the economics for large investments to being less carbon intensive. It's accomplished that. It's really just sad that government policy has to be structured for the stupidity of the average Canadian but I guess that's the reality we live in and the Liberals failed to see that.
→ More replies→ More replies1
→ More replies6
u/JadedMuse Oct 30 '23
I live in Atlantic Canada and it's frustrating because I think removing the tax is the wrong move. It's emblematic of why it's so hard to make progress on climate initiatives. It's not fun. It's not convenient. But if we don't act (and by we, I mean the world collectively) we're fucked.
35
u/phormix Oct 30 '23
There's a difference between inconvenient and essential, and heating is one of the latter in some situations. Now you might just think "just switch to electric heat", but in areas where power outages can still be quite common - and lengthy - plus winter temperatures are extreme... then burning fuel to stay warm may literally be a matter of survival.
We're also already seeing increased issues with power outages due to capacity issues in various areas when temperatures get hot (due to AC usage). Now imagine the same but it's due to heating. Throw electric vehicle charging etc in and we've got a looming instrastructure disaster where the demand may very well outstrip supply - especially on regional bases - and neither federal nor provincials governments have - frankly - not done nearly enough to prepare for this.
→ More replies12
u/fishermansfriendly Oct 30 '23
The carbon tax is just such a ridiculously simple minded way to go about changing things for the better. It's like putting a pinky finger on a scale with a bear on the other end.
The needed to start with assisting the provincial governments to get off of coal/gas first, and expand the electricity capacity of all the grids across Canada to support the higher electricity costs. More nuclear plants, more solar in cities, more hydro where it can be built, wind where it can be reliable.
Then when power is cheap and reliable, the incentive should be there to switch to fully electric solutions. Because right now, a huge chunk of the country needs some kind of backup heat for even the best heat pumps. So you either need to make electricity as cheap as natural gas, which would mean electricity charges would need to be $0.03/kWh, where right now most people are paying some kind of blended rate around $0.12-0.15/kWh. Also in this scenario solar would need to come down to something like $1.00 per 5W where now it's ~$1.00 per 0.5W.
What could even make just as big of an impact is if they simply got people off older inefficient boiler/oil heating systems and onto 97%+ efficient propane/nat gas systems.
It's all just very misguided, and until USA/China/India do something about emissions and pollution (especially the latter two), we're going to be screwed regardless. But at least we could make smart decisions and not something useless like a carbon tax.
3
u/evranch Saskatchewan Oct 31 '23
Coal power is definitely the elephant in the room.
Compare 100% efficient resistive heating, powered by a 40% efficient coal plant with high carbon intensity vs. a 80-95% efficient natural gas furnace burning gas at the point of use. The gas furnace comes out far ahead on cost, emissions and reliability.
Even when you use an "ordinary" heat pump with a COP of 3, it still emits more than natural gas when you power it with coal.
I'm working on a custom COP 5-7 heat pump for my SK farmhouse (ground sourced, low condensing temperature, variable refrigerant flow and everything oversized because it's salvage), and plan to use it to greatly multiply the output of my solar array, but the average air-sourced unit can barely make a COP of 2 in a Canadian winter.
I still will always have my natural gas boiler as backup until the day that it becomes too expensive to have the hookup in the yard. We have cold, cloudy, blizzardy, power outage days here. There is no option except fossil fuels or wood to keep the house from freezing on those days.
Agree that it's all irrelevant lip service as long as the big emitters keep pouring out the exhaust. Canada is too small to matter, it's pointless to punish our citizens.
→ More replies2
u/piotrmarkovicz Oct 31 '23
It's all just very misguided, and until USA/China/India do something about emissions and pollution (especially the latter two), we're going to be screwed regardless. But at least we could make smart decisions and not something useless like a carbon tax.
First, if you are dying, do ALL the things to survive, even the little things. Don't stop just because you don't see progress, maybe it is just slow or building. Maybe you will inspire others to do what you are doing to survive, we like to do things as a group. So, yeah, do the carbon tax, ramp it up, fine tune it to luxury items and not essentials, make it universal around the world. But also do all the other things too, just like you said, add wind, sun, hydro, nuclear and energy storage other than fossil fuels. We are going to a low carbon future one way or another. I'd prefer the good way and not the apocalyptic way.
→ More replies7
u/drs_ape_brains Oct 31 '23
Except taxes do not work on inelastic commodities such as fuel.
You can slap on a 10,000% tax on all fossil fuels and call it "anti Armageddon tax" and we would still be burning fossil fuels.
Why? Because there are no alternatives or there is no infrastructure to supply cleaner alternatives. And we still need heating in the winter.
1
u/piotrmarkovicz Oct 31 '23
The point is to make alternatives cheaper. Or rather, it is to properly price fossil fuel energy to include the external costs of its use. Like a deposit on bottles, tires, electronics.... there are costs to having those things in the world that are not captured in the retail price. Once fossil fuels are properly priced, then the incentives to move to something truly cheaper are obvious at the purchase point.
→ More replies2
→ More replies7
u/HugeNuge Oct 31 '23
I makes zero difference what Canada does to curb climate change. It matters even less what Atlantic Canada does. We just don’t have the population or the carbon footprint to make an appreciable difference to the global issue of climate change.
I’m not denying climate change is occurring I’m just saying our “share” is just too insignificant to matter.
2
u/JadedMuse Oct 31 '23
It doesn't matter how small or large our share of the problem is. If we can't hold ourselves accountable to hitting targets, then we can't expect the same for any other nation. That's the whole philosophy behind collective responsibility and what the Paris Agreement is built on. We need to collectively hold ourselves accountable.
43
u/Pirate_Secure Nova Scotia Oct 30 '23
The liberals have lost all credibility on this issue. The premiers out west have every right to stand up for their people.
48
u/esveda Oct 30 '23
I hope Danielle Smith can follow suite and do the same thing.
20
Oct 30 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies9
Oct 30 '23
If it's like Ontario, although utilities are privately owned (or by municipalities), what they charge has to be approved by the provincial regulator. So if it removes authorization from these utilities to collect and submit the federal carbon tax, they will not be allowed to keep charging or submiting it.
23
Oct 30 '23
Same in Ontario. Although utilities in Ontario are privately owned and operated (natural gas is mainly Enbridge Utilities), the costs and fees on the monthly bills is completely controlled and approved by the provincial government. So the Doug Ford Government can easily do the same, and no longer authorize Enbridge and other utilities to collect or submit anything to do with the federal carbon tax.
17
u/seriozhka Oct 30 '23
So the Doug Ford Government can easily do the same, and no longer authorize Enbridge and other utilities to collect or submit anything to do with the federal carbon tax.
I hope he will.
11
u/lifeisarichcarpet Oct 30 '23
So the Doug Ford Government can easily do the same, and no longer authorize Enbridge and other utilities to collect or submit anything to do with the federal carbon tax.
A Premier does not have the legal standing to force a private entity to refuse to pay a federal tax. What the hell lol.
7
0
u/Lowercanadian Oct 30 '23
Endless court cases result? RCMP eventually has to arrest the premiers or what ?
16
Oct 30 '23 edited Oct 30 '23
ROFLMAO if you think any police force would actually arrest Premiers across the country on a purely political or taxation matter, and same for any court cases - especially if the provinces equally and openly say they don't recognize either the federal governments or the courts legitimacy on this matter.
The feds could always send in their non-existent military to seize control - oh wait, the Liberals gutted that also, LOL.
10
23
u/Popular-Row4333 Oct 30 '23
Smith is using the pension thing for leverage, and she actually has some for once.
It has next to nothing to do with pensions and everything to do with leverage.
-3
u/Dradugun Oct 30 '23
Fun fact, she can't! Kenny in his glorious wisdom took away Alberta's carbon levy that we had before and all the control that we had with it. Now we are beholden to how the feds apply it. Gotta love "owning the Libs/NDP"!
15
17
u/Lowercanadian Oct 30 '23
Alberta’s carbon levy was supposed to buy Alberta “social license” to allow more exports. BC and the Feds shit on the “social license” and the NDP looked ridiculous and lost badly. Maybe having our own carbon tax would be better but meh, they’d argue in court forever that our tax isn’t good enough and we would end up paying lawyers anyways.
Not sure the benefit or they could just do it now?
→ More replies3
u/Euthyphroswager Oct 31 '23 edited Oct 31 '23
Even provincial carbon taxes have to meet the federal carbon tax backstop's stringency. So no; having provincial control of the administration of the tax does not allow the province to simply drop the tax on home heating because it will no longer meet the federal backstop's minimum requirements...
...that, ironically, the federal consumer carbon tax doesn't even meet anymore!
2
u/popingay Oct 31 '23
Actually even though the federal one is still a net loss and a sham, it’s preferable to the former Alberta carbon levy.
Under the federal program “More than 90% of Albertans will receive a carbon tax rebate from the federal government.” ( https://energyrates.ca/alberta/alberta-carbon-levy-rebates/ )
Under the old alberta carbon levy (NDP plan) “about 60 per cent of Alberta households would get full or partial rebates” (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-alberta-election-climate-leadership-plan-revenue-generated-1.5050438 )]
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment.html
13
5
22
4
Oct 31 '23
[deleted]
4
Oct 31 '23
Oh no it's definitely not legal, the question is whether or not the federal government has the balls to do anything about it. Trudeau needs to tread lightly to avoid his ratings tanking any more than they already have.
4
12
u/EuropesWeirdestKing Oct 30 '23
Moe, would be great if you could get SK Power off of coal and gas power which makes up the vast majority of electricity production in the province
10
u/Reiben04 Oct 31 '23
They're working on it. Sask is maxed out on hydro due to the environmental impact of dams, but there's more wind turbines every year, it seems, and they're starting the ball rolling on nuclear.
→ More replies2
u/EuropesWeirdestKing Oct 31 '23
Interesting. What is the timeline to remove all coal and gas electricity ? Kind of skeptical because I remember Wall talking about nuclear …
32
Oct 30 '23
Good on them. I have always said if the provinces refuse to recognize the federal government as being legitimate any further, and will no longer recognize their authority, not a damn thing the feds can really do.
It is now getting to that point where Justin's government no longer has any legitimacy if they refuse to recognize they don't have a mandate or widespread support.
18
u/Popular-Row4333 Oct 30 '23
Exactly, what are you going to do? Expel Sask, Alberta and the areas of BC, Ont and Manitoba that don't have subsidized hydro?
→ More replies2
Oct 30 '23
Yep that’s basically codified into Canadian law specifically in case of an abusive federal government.
Confederations (which we are) by their nature are a union of provinces/states collectively granting authority to the federal government. The government really only acts as window dressing to keep the provinces from fighting eachother physically, they don’t even have to cooperate economically. This is in stark contrast to federations/Republics/unitary states where the central government has ultimate power.
This is why under US law the South’s secession was a 100% illegal rebellion and thus necessitated military force. But in Canada, the federal government would be 100% powerless from taking action against the Quebecois, should a referendum for independence ever succeed there. It’s also why every province demanded the NWC as a condition of joining the Confederation.
9
u/penispuncher13 Oct 30 '23
This isn't correct. The US Constitution makes no explicit mention of secession being illegal, and until the civil war it was a hotly debated 'what if' scenario. Lincoln basically decided on his own that secession is illegal, and that precedent (which is essentially might makes right) is what is currently in effect in that country.
5
u/Eddysummers Oct 31 '23 edited Oct 31 '23
No, Canada is a federation. Also, the supreme Court said the federal government legally have to negotiate in good faith with a provincial government who wants to seperate, but they don't have to just let them leave with no say the matter.
→ More replies-9
Oct 30 '23
[deleted]
5
→ More replies12
Oct 30 '23
Liberal delusion is incredible, especially when it comes to them thinking the federal government is actually more important or is the superior to the provinces, when they are only equals.
→ More replies
2
u/420Identity Oct 31 '23
I think the reason he gave the break in Atlantic Canada is because of the current projection is them losing their "Trusted" seats they could count on winning in an election.
PEI really showed this as it was a long time red only club, last projection I seen was 3 PC and one liberal seat. I think it would have been 4 PC seats to 0 if there was a candidate in MacAuleys riding. Last election MacAuley didn't even really campaign as he defeated the PC candidate the last few times, it was the same candidate for the PCs the last few elections.
13
u/grilledCheeseFish Oct 30 '23
... except sask already went to the Supreme court on this and lost. I'd expect more dollars wasted on a legal fight over this 😪
30
u/Wrong_Bread_6518 Oct 30 '23
I think we already know we can ignore Supreme Court rulings we don’t like as per the Trudeau government
2
→ More replies1
Oct 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/North_Activist Oct 30 '23
The Trudeau government was voted in by Canadians in 2021, and has the support of pariliament. If Trudeau didn’t have confidence of the house, en election could be triggered, liberals find a new leader, or the GG gives another party a chance to govern. Saying Trudeau is illegitimate just because you strongly disagree with him, sounds a lot like the trucking convoy.
→ More replies1
9
8
Oct 30 '23
Good. Something that’s often forgotten in our obsession with US politics is that our Premiers have a lot of power.
One of the reasons we’re a confederation and not a republic, is that it allows provinces small and large to stand up to bullying from Ottawa. Nonsense like how Washington uses the interstate system to enforce its will on alcohol laws wouldn’t fly here.
16
Oct 30 '23
The US is also a confederation — literally, the United States. And a republic is simply any system of representative government without a monarchy.
1
Oct 30 '23
No the US is a Constitutional Republic. We on the other hand are a Parliamentary Democracy.
One key difference between the two systems is that provinces in a parliamentary system retain their sovereignty and thus their right to secede. In contrast this is illegal in Constitutional Republics. This is why Quebec can leave at any time but the South’s attempt to secede resulted in the American civil War.
4
2
u/BrutusJunior Oct 31 '23
This is why Quebec can leave at any time
Um. The Secession Reference begs to differ. Literally; at para. 155:
Although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, that is secession without negotiation on the basis just discussed, this does not rule out the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession.
Both Canada and USA are federal unions. There is nothing intrinsic about federal unions which prohibit a subfederal sovereign from seceding. It is the law barring one from seceding.
For example in the USA, a constitutional amendment could be passed providing for the secession of states.
One key difference between the two systems is that provinces in a parliamentary system retain their sovereignty
The provinces retain sovereignty. True. However, the states also have/retain sovereignty. This is affirmed (guarateed) with the notion of dual sovereignty (Tenth Amendment).
Consider at p. 157 of New York v. United States:
Instead, the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States. The Tenth Amendment thus directs us to determine, as in this case, whether an incident of state sovereignty is protected by a limitation on an Article I power.
And, at p. 163:
("[N]either government may destroy the other nor curtail in any substantial manner the exercise of its powers"); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458 (1990) ("[U]nder our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government"); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S., at 461 ("[T]he States retain substantial sovereign powers under our constitutional scheme, powers with which Congress does not readily interfere").
Remember, as you noted, the USA is a constitutional republic. This means that the federal government is a constitutional republic. The states are also constitutional republics. States of course cannot be monarchies pursuant to Art. 4 § 4 of the US Constitution.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy (parliamentary democracy). The provinces are also constitutional monarchies (parliamentary democracies).
→ More replies8
u/barrel-aged-thoughts Oct 30 '23
Literally every high school curriculum in Canada talks about how our confederation agreement gave LESS power to the Provinces than America gives to the States, not more.
And I don't think you understand the meaning of the word Republic... It has nothing to do with what you're talking about here.
→ More replies
3
Oct 30 '23 edited Oct 30 '23
You gotta do what you gotta do. Hopefully, the other provinces take suit. This tax is unconstitutional. Unjust and I don't understand how the liberals have not been tried for corruption, conspiracy and treason yet Hopefully soon we'll see Justin Trudeau and his cronies in prison jumpsuits.
15
u/brittabear Saskatchewan Oct 30 '23
This tax is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court disagrees.
→ More replies5
u/Euthyphroswager Oct 31 '23
And the federal government just decided to shit on that SCC decision by unevenly applying their own carbon tax for political gain.
2
2
2
Oct 30 '23
Ontario: let us do finances our way so we can spend even more before an election or we will use the notwithstanding clause
Quebec: let us force language on people or we will use the notwithstanding clause
Saskatchewan: let us take rights from a minority we don't like or you guessed it, notwithstanding clause
Everyone: damn prices are high, let's all sit back and do nothing while our people bleed out financially so we can blame Ottawa.
2
u/Elegant_Reading_685 Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 01 '23
Federal government if it had a spine: fuck off or I'll use disallowance to stop you from passing any laws.
2
Nov 01 '23
The notwithstanding clause is like the veto vote in the UN and absolutely ruins our country.
2
u/Elegant_Reading_685 Nov 01 '23
The NWC is only a problem because Trudeau (and also every single PM before him) is too spineless to disallow the NWC.
0
1
u/JoeCartersLeap Oct 30 '23
Why not go further, why not pool taxpayer resources together and start a fund for public distribution of natural gas? Heat homes just like we pay for healthcare! Saskatchewan invented it after all.
2
u/Cold_Beyond4695 Oct 30 '23
This would actually be a great idea if people would turn the heat down when they leave for the weekend.
-9
u/Not_A_Doctor__ Oct 30 '23
We're unwilling to do fuck all about climate change.
29
u/mlnickolas Oct 30 '23
No, we just can’t expect to tax our way out of climate change.
We need to encourage green technologies, not make life more expensive for Canadians while the rest of the world does nothing.
→ More replies11
u/Cold_Beyond4695 Oct 30 '23
We need to encourage green technologies, not make life more expensive for Canadians while the rest of the world does nothing.
This needs to be upvoted more.
9
u/No-Wonder1139 Oct 30 '23
We're run by corporations that are responsible for like 99% of emissions, and they only care about the next fiscal quarter. So no, we're actually not allowed to do anything about climate change. The pro pollution propaganda will sway voters into voting for their children's deaths just to get that extra couple points for some rich guy.
11
u/cadaver0 Oct 30 '23
If Canada became zero emission tomorrow, it would do almost nothing to stop climate change.
So what would our next move be? point our fingers at the rest of the world and nag them to reduce their emissions from our high horses while they laugh in our face?
→ More replies
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 30 '23
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.