MOE CALLS OUT CARBON TAX
Minister says premier sounds like a climate skeptic
Canada's environment minister said Scott Moe sounds like a “climate skeptic,” after the premier accused Ottawa of lying by unveiling a plan to hike the carbon tax to $170 per tonne of emissions by the end of the decade.
“Justin Trudeau and Catherine Mckenna lied to Canadians,” Moe said in a statement Friday. “Just before the last election they vowed that they would not raise the carbon tax. Trudeau has now announced that the carbon tax will be jacked up nearly six times what it is today by 2030.”
Mckenna, the former federal environment minister, said in August 2019 that the federal government had “no intention” of increasing the carbon price beyond the $50 per tonne already set out for 2022. She said any further decision would come after consultation with the provinces.
The premier cited a headline based on those comments. He said the federal government hasn't consulted Saskatchewan about the new plan, released on Friday, to increase the carbon tax by increments of $15 per tonne every year from 2023 to 2030.
But Mckenna's successor, federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, rejected any notion that the federal government was or is being dishonest about its carbon approach.
He said the new plan is just a proposal. Consultations with the provinces are ahead.
“I would say to Premier Moe, I don't think that kind of language is very helpful or constructive in a federation,” he said in response to the premier's accusations. He said Mckenna's comments were “absolutely correct,” and the existing climate framework was always clear that the price would be up for review after 2022.
“Premier Moe needs to have a credible view as to how to move forward on climate change,” said Wilkinson. “At the present time, he comes off as a climate skeptic.”
Moe has acknowledged that human activities contribute to climate change. But Wilkinson argued that a carbon tax is “by far the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions.” He said 99.5 per cent of economists agree.
“We're well beyond the time where we can afford, in this world that is moving to a low-carbon future, to have folks who don't take climate change seriously,” Wilkinson said.
But Moe wasn't the only Saskatchewan politician to criticize Wilkinson's proposal. In a rare case of bipartisan consensus, NDP Leader Ryan Meili also saw federal flip-flopping.
“Saying one thing and doing another, it's not really cool,” Meili said.
He said the proposed carbon pricing hike will make life tougher for ordinary people.
“I think people are really struggling right now across Canada, and adding another cost that's going to hit consumers right now is really the wrong approach,” said Meili.
Moe said the “massive increase” revealed on Friday comes at the worst possible time, adding new costs amid economic uncertainty, even though it won't change anything until 2023. The focus of climate action should be on technology and innovation, in Moe's view, rather than “a single carbon tax that will increase the cost of everything.”
But the federal plan released Friday does include $15 billion in new funding to support a other climate initiatives, including subsidies for technology like electric vehicles. Ottawa is also sticking with its commitment to return virtually all of its carbon pricing revenues to residents of provinces where they're collected.
For an average Saskatchewan family of four, a $170 per tonne carbon tax would mean $3,829 in annual rebates, doled out quarterly.
Moe said Saskatchewan “will continue fighting this ineffective and unconstitutional carbon tax.” The province took its arguments to the Supreme Court of Canada in September to challenge the tax. It is still awaiting a decision.
But Wilkinson said carbon pricing isn't going anywhere, even if Saskatchewan's constitutional challenge succeeds.
“The likely outcome, in the unlikely event that the federal government were to lose, is the need for us to simply adjust the way in which the price on pollution is implemented,” he said.
“There are other ways to do it. He said it “doesn't necessarily mean that the price on pollution doesn't proceed.
“But at the end of the day we're going to all need to wait to hear what the Supreme Court has to say,” said Wilkinson.