‘The court ruled in our favor, blocking the federal government from unconstitutionally garnishing money, pending the full hearing and determination of the continuation of the injunction by the Federal Court,’ announced Saskatchewan Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre.
The province of Saskatchewan has been granted an injunction after it appealed to the courts to block Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government from seizing its bank account for refusing to pay $42.4 million in carbon taxes. The newly-granted injunction will remain in force until an earlier injunction is resolved by the courts.
“On Friday, Saskatchewan was forced to file an emergency injunction application due to the continued threat of garnishment of our bank account by the Canada Revenue Agency,” Saskatchewan Attorney General and Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre wrote on Monday in a post shared by Premier Scott Moe. “The application was successful.”
“The court ruled in our favor, blocking the federal government from unconstitutionally garnishing money, pending the full hearing and determination of the continuation of the injunction by the Federal Court,” Eyre added.
Prior to the injunction being granted, Eyre had alerted the public that a demand from the nation’s tax agency, the Canada Revenue Agency, mandated that the province pay $42.4 million in carbon taxes within 14 days, a move she characterized as a political “threat” on behalf of the Trudeau government.
A letter dated May 29 by Eyre’s lawyers show that an official of the “Canada Revenue Agency on behalf of the Minister of Revenue alleged the Province owed a fuel charge debt under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act totaling $42.4 million and that if the full amount was not paid within 14 days the Canada Revenue Agency may take legal action.”
The situation heated up last week, as LifeSiteNews reported, when Eyre filed the injunction following the CRA’s issuing of a Requirement To Pay notice on June 25 to Saskatchewan. According to the CRA, the province owes some 55,592,632 in carbon taxes along with $237,140 interest.
As reported before by LifeSiteNews, in October of last year, amid dismal polling numbers that showed his government would be defeated in a landslide by the Conservative Party come the next election, Trudeau announced he was pausing the collection of the carbon tax on home heating oil for three years.
While it was a welcomed move by many, home heating oil is almost exclusively used in Atlantic Canada, meaning the tax break only applied to certain citizens, namely the 24 seats in Atlantic Canada currently held by the Liberals.
Going a step further, Trudeau refused to offer a similar carbon tax relief to those who heat their homes with natural gas, the main product used in provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan. This led to Moe announcing his government would take matters into its own hands by pausing the collection of the federal carbon tax on natural gas for home heating, a policy which took effect on January 1, 2024.
Moe has continued to state that his policy is one of fairness, arguing that now citizens of Saskatchewan, like in Atlantic Canada, do not have to pay carbon tax on home heating bills.
It’s about fairness, says Saskatchewan attorney general
Saskatchewan was able to stop collecting the carbon tax as the province’s energy supplier, SaskEnergy, is the Crown-owned distributor of natural gas used for home heating.
Eyre added that when it comes to the issue of not collecting the carbon tax, it’s “about fairness and the fair application of the law.”
“The Trudeau-NDP carbon tax should be taken off everything for everyone,” she said. “But until that happens, your Saskatchewan government will protect our province and ensure tax fairness for Saskatchewan families.”
The Trudeau government has not only denied tax exemptions to forms of energy other than home heating oil, but it also has remained adamant that it will continue increasing the carbon tax rate.
On April 1, the Trudeau government increased the carbon tax from $65 to $85 per tonne despite seven of 10 provincial premiers objecting to the increase, and 70 percent of Canadians saying they are against it.
To reach Trudeau’s goal of net zero by 2050, the carbon tax would have to balloon to $350 per tonne.
He has pitched his carbon tax as the best way to reduce so-called carbon emissions. However, the tax has added extra financial burdens on households despite hundreds of dollars of rebates per family.
To reach Trudeau’s goal of net zero by 2050, the carbon tax would have to balloon to $350 per tonne.
The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
A majority of Americans say it is more important for the U.S. to establish energy independence than to fight climate change, according to new polling.
The poll from Napolitan News Service of 1,000 registered voters shows that 57% of voters say making America energy independent is more important than fighting climate change, while 39% feel the opposite and 4% are unsure.
Those surveyed also were asked: Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, or keeping the price of cars low enough for families to afford them?
Half of voters (50%) said keeping the price of cars low was more important to them than reducing emissions, while 43% said emissions reductions were more important than the price of buying a car.
When asked, “Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions or reducing the cost and improving the reliability of electricity and gas for American families?”, 59% said reducing the cost and increasing the reliability was more important compared to 35% who said reducing emissions was more important.
The survey was conducted online by pollster Scott Rasmussen on March 18-19. Field work was conducted by RMG Research. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points
Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].
Canada has set ambitious climate goals, aiming to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030, and to hit net-zero emissions by 2050.
Now a senior fellow at Resource Works, Jerome Gessaroli, argues that Canada is over-focusing internally on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, when we should “look at cooperating with developing countries to jointly reduce emissions.”
He continues: “And we do that in a way that helps ourselves. It helps meet our own goals. That’s through Article 6 of the Paris Accord, allowing countries to share emission reduction credits from jointly developed projects.”
Reduction on a global scale
Article 6, says Gessaroli, means this: “We can work towards meeting our own emission goals, and can help developing countries meet theirs. We can do it in a way that’s much more efficient. We get a lot more bang for our buck than if we are trying to just do it domestically on our own.”
The point is that, in the end, emissions are reduced on a global scale — as he stressed in a five-part series that he wrote for Resource Works last November.
And in a study for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (where he is a senior fellow) he wrote: “The benefits could be large. Canada could reduce emissions by 50 per cent more if it carried out methane reduction projects both internationally and domestically, rather than solely in Canada.”
But is Ottawa interested?
Gessaroli says the federal government expressed interest in Article 6 in 2019 — but has not moved since then.
“They barely looked at it. Since this requires government-to-government coordination, it needs Ottawa’s initiative. But there doesn’t seem to be too much interest, too much appetite in that.”
All Ottawa has said so far is: “Going forward, Canada will explore these and other similar options to strengthen international co-operation and generate incentives for further emission reductions.”
Gessaroli on Resource Works
Gessaroli has been working with Resource Works since he first spoke with our Stewart Muir, following a letter that Muir wrote in The Vancouver Sun in 2022: ‘Gas has key role to play in meeting 1.5C climate targets.’
Gessaroli saw in Resource Works advocacy for responsible resource development “for the people, the citizens of BC, in an environmentally responsible manner and in a manner that’s efficient, driven by the private sector.”
And: “Resource Works supports responsible resource development, not uncritical expansion. We have these resources. We should develop them, but in a way that benefits society, respects nature, respects the local peoples, and so that wide elements of society can benefit from that resource development.”
Gessaroli on electric vehicles
Gessaroli hit a shared interest with Resource Works in a 2024 paper for its Energy Futures Institute, critiquing BC’s plan to require that all new vehicles sold in the province must be electric zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035.
For one thing, he wrote, BC would need to spend $1.8 billion to provide electric charging points for the vehicles. And billions more would be required to provide expanded power generation and transmission systems.
“The Government of BC should adjust or rescind its mandated targets for new minimum zero-emission vehicle sales.”
And on ZEV subsidies
Stewart Muir and Barry Penner, chair of the Energy Futures Institute, wrote a guest column last October in Business in Vancouver. They cited Gessaroli’s paper above, and noted: “According to Gessaroli, meeting BC’s ZEV targets will require an additional 2,700 gigawatt hours of electricity by 2030, and 9,700 gigawatt hours by 2040—almost equal to the output of two Site C dams.”
Gessaroli has also looked at the subsidies BC offers (up to $4,000) to people who buy an electric vehicle.
“The subsidies do help. They do incentivize people to buy EVs. But it’s a very costly way to reduce carbon emissions, anywhere upwards of $600, $700, even $800 a tonne to eliminate one tonne of carbon.
“When you look at the social cost of carbon, the government uses a figure around $170 a tonne. That’s the damage done from every tonne of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. So we’re paying $800 to remove one tonne of carbon when that same tonne of carbon does damage of about $170. That doesn’t sound like a very cost-effective way of getting rid of carbon, does it?”
Gessaroli on Donald Trump’s policies
Gessaroli says tariffs on imports are not the only benefit that Donald Trump plans for U.S. industry that will hurt Canada.
“He also wants to reduce tax rates, 15% for US manufacturers, and allow full deductibility for equipment purchases. You reduce regulations and red tape on companies while lowering their tax rates. They’re already competitive to begin with. Well, they’re going to be even more competitive, more innovative.”
For Canada, he says: “Get rid of the government heavy hand of overtaxing and enforcing inefficient and ineffective regulations. Get rid of all of that. Encourage competition in the marketplace. And over time, we’d find Canadians can be quite innovative and quite competitive in our own right. And we can hold our own. We can be better off.
“And there’d be more tax revenues being generated by the government. With the tax revenue, you can build the roads, build the hospitals, improve the healthcare system, things like that.
“But without this type of vibrant economic type activity, you’re going to get the stagnation we’re seeing right now.”
About Jerome Gessaroli
Gessaroli leads the Sound Economic Policy Project at the B.C. Institute of Technology. He is the lead Canadian co-author of Financial Management: Theory and Practice, a widely used textbook. His writing has appeared in many Canadian newspapers.
Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, highlights Gessaroli’s impact: “Jerome brings a level of economic and policy analysis that cuts through the noise. His research doesn’t just challenge assumptions—it provides a roadmap for smarter, more effective climate and energy policies.
“Canada needs more thinkers like him, who focus on pragmatic solutions that benefit both the environment and the economy.”
Gessaroli and Karen, his wife of 34 years, live in Vancouver and enjoy cruising to unwind. In his downtime, Gessaroli reads about market ethics and political economy — which he calls his idea of relaxation.
