Saskatchewan granted injunction against Trudeau gov’t over carbon tax demands

‘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.”

pic.twitter.com/lQ5sXENvA6

— Scott Moe (@PremierScottMoe) July 9, 2024

“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. 

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.

Related Topics:#AnthonyMurdoch #LifeSiteNews #SaskatchewanCarbonTax SaskatchewanVSOttawa

Up Next

CBC approves more bonuses for 1,200 staff

Don't Miss

B.C.’s provincial health officer should be fired

Todayville

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.

Follow Author

Taxpayers spent $15 million on Fauci’s private security, chauffeur after he left government

Business / 2 hours ago

Ottawa’s emissions cap another headache for consumers and business

Business / 8 hours ago

Claiming the Carbon Tax is Not Inflationary Defies Belief – So Do Media Reports About Inflation

Business

Ottawa’s emissions cap another headache for consumers and business

Published on November 14, 2024

Todayville

From Resource Works

Ottawa’s emissions cap for oil and gas aims to cut emissions but risks raising costs for consumers and disrupting industry stability.

Ottawa has brought down a new emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, with a mandate to reduce emissions by 35 percent from 2019 levels by 2030 to support the federal government’s climate targets. While the federal government is celebrating the cap as a big step towards a more sustainable future, it is going to make life harder for consumers and businesses alike.

This cap is coming in at a time when the oil sector is finally gaining greater stability due to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), and the mandate would undermine that progress and press greater costs upon households and industries that are already adjusting to high inflation and uncertainty in world markets.

Now that TMX is operational, Canada’s oil producers have grown their access to international markets, most importantly in Asia and the West Coast of the United States. Much-needed price stability now exists for Western Canadian Select (WCS), cutting the discount against the U.S. West Texas Intermediate benchmark, enabling Canadian oil to compete more effectively.

Newfound stability means that Canadian consumers and businesses have benefited from slightly lower prices, and that industry has grown less dependent on a more limited domestic demand. However, Ottawa’s emissions cap does threaten this new balance, and the sector now has to deal with compliance costs that could be passed down to consumers.

In order to meet the cap’s targets, Canadian oil producers must heavily invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which is costly but essential. Major CCS projects include Shell’s Quest and the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, both of which are already operational.

The Pathways Alliance is a coalition of six major oil sands companies and is preparing to invest in one of the world’s largest networks for carbon storage. These efforts are crucial for reducing emissions, despite requiring vast amounts of capital.

Those in the industry are worrying that the emissions cap will push resources away from production and, instead, towards compliance, adding costs that will be borne by fuel prices and other consumer products.

Ottawa has portrayed the cap as an essential measure for meeting the federal government’s climate goals, with Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson labeling it “technically achievable.” Nonetheless, industry players argue that the timeline does not align with the practicalities of scaling CCS and other strategies aimed at decarbonizing.

Strathcona Resources executive chairman Adam Waterous pointed out the “stroke-of-the-pen” risk, in which shifting political landscapes imperil ongoing investments in carbon capture. Numerous oil producers feel that without certainty in carbon price stability, Ottawa’s cap will result in an unstable business environment that will push investment away from production.

Business leaders do not share the federal government’s optimism about the cap and see it as a one-sided approach that fails to reckon with market realities. The Pathways Alliance, which includes companies like Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural Resources, has been frustrated in its multiple attempts to get federal support to fund its $16.5-billion CCS project.

Rather than imposing these new limits, energy industry advocates argue that the government should provide targeted incentives like “carbon contracts for difference” (CCfDs), which help to stabilize carbon credit prices and reduce financial risk among investors. These measures would enable the energy sector to decarbonize without putting a greater burden on consumers.

The cap’s timing also raises concerns about the Canada-U.S. relationship. Canada has traditionally been a stable supplier of energy and helps to bolster U.S. energy security. However, as the U.S. increases its reliance on Canadian oil, the cap could disrupt this trade relationship. Lowered production levels would leave the economies of both the U.S. and Canada vulnerable, potentially disrupting energy prices and supply stability.

For households across Canada, the emissions cap could mean further financial strain. The higher costs of compliance passed to oil producers will mean higher prices at the pump and more expensive heating costs at a time when Canadian consumers are already struggling financially.

Businesses will also face increasing operating costs, which will be passed down to consumers via more expensive goods and services. Furthermore, higher costs and reduced production will erode Canada’s competitive advantage in the global energy market, slowing economic growth and risking job losses in the energy sector.

So, while Ottawa can laud its emissions cap as a necessary action on the climate, the implications for consumers and businesses are tremendous. Working with industry to find pragmatic, collaborative solutions is how Ottawa can avoid creating more financial burdens for Canadians.

Energy

COP 29 is immoral

Published on November 13, 2024

Todayville

Energy Talking Points

By Alex Epstein

COP 29 seeks net-zero, which would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives

COP 29 seeks net-zero—rapidly eliminating fossil fuels—in the name of protecting us from climate danger.

In reality, net-zero would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives.

People should condemn COP and embrace energy freedom.

The COP 29 climate conference has a consistent theme: previous COPs have done an okay job of restricting fossil fuels in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but this one needs to eliminate fossil fuel use far faster so as to reach net-zero by 2050.This is 180° wrong.
COP 29’s goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to reach net-zero is deadly because:1. Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate along with improving every other aspect of life
2. Even barely implementing COP’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.

Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate.

The justification of COP 29’s net-zero agenda is that fossil fuel use is causing an escalating “climate crisis.”But if we look at the full effects of fossil fuels on climate danger, we find that overall fossil fuels have dramatically reduced climate danger.
Myth: Climate danger is higher than ever because of fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions.Truth: We have a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths due to our enormous fossil-fueled climate mastery abilities: heating and cooling, infrastructure-building, irrigation, crop transport.¹
Myth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 is an “existential threat” that will soon cause global catastrophe and then apocalypse.Truth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 levels will lead to levels of warming and other changes that we can master and flourish with.
For the full story on how fossil fuels overall make us far safer from climate and will continue to do so, read this:

The climate safety denial movement

Alex Epstein

·

Jan 25

Read full story

Even barely implementing COP 29’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.

While COP 28 leaders bemoan how slow their restriction of fossil fuels in pursuit of net-zero has been, even “slow” restriction has caused a global energy crisis.

Myth: Net-zero policies are new and exciting.Truth: Net-zero policies have caused catastrophic energy shortages even with minuscule implementation. Just by slowing the growth of fossil fuel use, not even reducing it, they have caused global energy shortages advocates didn’t warn us of.
Minuscule net-zero policies causing huge problems:US: frequent power shortages after shutting down fossil fuel power plants.
EU: deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting their domestic fossil fuel industry.

Poor nations: can’t afford fuel due to global restrictions.²
If just restricting the growth of fossil fuels in a world that needs far more energy is catastrophic, what would it mean to reduce CO2 emissions by the 50% many “climate emergency” advocates want by 2030 and the 100% they want by 2050?Global misery and premature death.

Every “net zero by 2050” myth, refuted

Alex Epstein

·

September 21, 2023

Read full story

COP 29’s net-zero agenda harms poor nations most of all.

The net-zero movement led by COP is particularly dangerous to Africa and other poor regions.Consider: 1/3 of the world uses wood and animal dung for heating and cooking. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.
Only fossil fuels can provide the energy they need to develop.³
Every prosperous country has developed using fossil fuels.No poor country has been able to develop to the point of prosperity without massive fossil fuel use.
Development requires energy, and fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective and scalable source of energy.⁴
Fossil fuels are so uniquely good at providing low-cost, reliable energy for developing nations that even nations with little or no fossil fuel resources have used fossil fuels to develop and prosper. E.g. South Korea (83% fossil fuels), Japan (85% fossil fuels), Singapore (99% fossil fuels).⁵
The obvious path for African development and prosperity is to use fossil fuel whenever it’s the most cost-effective option, which is most of the time, and certainly to responsibly produce the significant fossil fuel resources that exist in Africa.Yet COP tells Africa to forgo fossil fuels.
COP 29 is fundamentally immoral because its goal of “net zero by 2050” would deprive billions of the energy they need to prosper.Good people who care about energy and human flourishing should condemn COP and net-zero can champion energy freedom instead.

The path forward: reject net-zero and embrace energy freedom.

The path to global prosperity and increasing climate safety is energy freedom: allowing us to use all forms of energy so we are prosperous, resilient to climate danger, and in the long-term innovate new, truly cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels.
Rejecting net-zero and embracing energy freedom means scrapping the Paris Agreement, whose pursuit of net-zero is committing virtually all nations, including the world’s poorest, to rejecting the fossil fuels they need to prosper.
While many at COP are saying that a US withdrawal from Paris by the next administration would be irresponsible, it is the only responsible action to take given that Paris commits us to banning most of the fossil fuels that we and our allies need.
Rejecting net-zero, including the Paris Agreement, and embracing energy freedom requires collaboration among pro-freedom countries like the US, developing nations such as African nations, and any reasonable energy companies.
Developing nations, above all African nations, need to reject net-zero and embrace energy freedom: the freedom to produce and use all cost-effective sources of energy—including, essentially, fossil fuels—which means rejecting all net-zero targets. Here’s a blueprint for doing it.

My Message to Leaders at African Energy Week 2023

Alex Epstein

·

October 17, 2023

Read full story

The energy industry and obviously the fossil fuel industry should condemn COP and its net-zero goal. Appalling, ExxonMobil and others are actually calling for the US to stay in the net-zero Paris Agreement!Here’s why this is both immoral and impractical.

The lesson of fossil fuel advocates’ failure at COP 28: stop “Arguing to 0,” start “Arguing to 100”

Alex Epstein

December 14, 2023

Read full story

Any attendee of COP 29 should thoroughly reject the conference’s “net zero by 2050” goal and instead proudly advocate for energy freedom and climate safety through climate mastery.If they do that, they have a real chance at stopping the conference from ruining the world.

Share

Todayville

Saskatchewan granted injunction against Trudeau gov’t over carbon tax demands

Energy