From Project Confederation

By Josh Andrus

Five years ago, I announced the launch of Project Confederation on Danielle Smith’s CHQR 770 radio show.

That interview changed my life forever.

The project launch was driven by a belief that federal policies – including, but not limited to, the carbon tax – were unfairly targeting Alberta and our economy.

Five years later, we find ourselves opening the next chapter of a long-running saga.

Slowly but surely, Canadians – not just Albertans – have worked out that carbon tax doesn’t make sense, doesn’t work, and isn’t constitutional.

And as the public backlash to the carbon tax grew, the federal government compromised the policy even further, making it even more unpopular and even less constitutional.

On Tuesday, Danielle Smith, now Alberta Premier, announced that her government is going to court to challenge the constitutionality of Ottawa’s selective carbon tax exemption on home heating oils.

The carbon tax, of course, is the levy charged for fuel and combustible waste as outlined in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and its regulations.

The carbon tax is a tax on everything.

Every product you consume relies on energy-intensive steps in the production cycle – whether it’s the combines harvesting crops, commercial trucks transporting goods, or the electricity powering lights and refrigeration at the grocery store, just to name a few.

This drives costs up throughout the production process in virtually every industry.

The carbon tax also serves as the flagship policy of the Liberal-NDP coalition government, which took office following the 2019 election – just two days before my first appearance on Danielle Smith’s show.

In the eyes of the federal government, the carbon tax represents a beacon to the world, signalling Canada’s new global position as a green, socialist utopia.

In the eyes of the voters, it represents a symbol of the Trudeau government’s unpopularity, a major contributor to ongoing affordability problems and a sluggish economy.

In the eyes of the provinces, it is a clear violation of provincial jurisdiction.

The Act requires provinces to establish these punitive carbon taxes, and if they don’t, the Act allows for Ottawa to impose carbon pricing.

When it was introduced, it faced immediate legal challenges from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.

They were joined in opposition to the law by Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick – meaning that six provinces, making up over 80% of the Canadian population, believed the carbon tax was a violation of provincial jurisdiction.

The provinces contended that natural resources fall under provincial authority, and that the carbon tax essentially imposes a levy on resource development.

Ottawa, however, argued that climate change constitutes a national crisis and thus falls under federal responsibility.

In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government – on the premise that it could be applied as a “minimum national standard.”

“This is in fact the very premise of a federal scheme that imposes minimum national standards: Canada and the provinces are both free to legislate in relation to the same fact situation but the federal law is paramount.”

Just two years later, the Liberal-NDP coalition completely abandoned the minimum national standard by granting a carbon tax carve-out to home heating oils.

Here’s the catch.

In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, less than one percent of households use home heating oils to keep their homes warm during cold weather.

That number rises to seven percent in New Brunswick, eighteen percent in Newfoundland and Labrador, thirty-two percent in Nova Scotia and forty percent in Prince Edward Island.

The carbon tax had become such an unpopular policy in Atlantic Canada that the Liberals, trying to stop their collapsing poll numbers, decided to try and regain some votes in the region.

If that weren’t enough, the Liberal government blatantly admitted that the decision was political.

On CTV’s Question Period, Rural Economic Development Minister Gudie Hutchings said  “I can tell you, the (Liberal) Atlantic caucus was vocal with what they’ve heard from their constituents, and perhaps they need to elect more Liberals in the Prairies so that we can have that conversation, as well.”

So much for the “minimum national standard.”

Immediately, the constitutionality of the carbon tax was called into question.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said the move was “not about fairness or about families, it’s only about votes.”

Moe moved swiftly, announcing that SaskEnergy – the Crown corporation that supplies natural gas to residents – would no longer collect or remit the carbon tax on home heating bills in Saskatchewan.

In a misguided effort to curry political favour in the Atlantic provinces, the Liberals have completely compromised the legal standing of the carbon tax and opened the door for provinces to explore new legal avenues against their signature policy.

Now, the Alberta government is seizing that opportunity by filing an application for judicial review of the exemption with the Federal Court, requesting a declaration that the exemption is “both unconstitutional and unlawful.”

“Albertans simply cannot stand by for another winter while the federal government picks and chooses who their carbon tax applies to,” Smith said in a statement. “Since they won’t play fair, we’re going to take the federal government back to court.”

Minister of Justice Mickey Amery added that:

“This exemption is not only unfair to the vast majority of Canadians, but it is also unlawful as the federal government does not have the authority to make special exemptions for certain parts of the country under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.”

“The federal government isn’t even following its own laws now. Someone needs to hold them accountable, and Alberta is stepping up to do just that.”

The carbon tax has always been unfair to western Canadians, where households use more energy per capita, thanks to our geography and climate.

In a press conference, Danielle Smith went further, saying:

“We’re calling on (the federal government) to repeal the carbon tax. We’ve been calling for that for years. The retail carbon tax is just punitive to taxpayers. It’s punitive to consumers.”

We agree.

It adds an additional expense at every level of the economy, affecting everything from home heating to transportation, and it creates an environment of higher prices on the goods and services we all rely on.

It’s time to take the action that should have been taken long ago.

It’s time to repeal the carbon tax.

Please sign this petition and join our effort to hold the federal government accountable:

Once you’ve signed, please share with your friends, family, and every Canadian.

Regards,

Josh Andrus
Executive Director
Project Confederation

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Génie

According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management.

The New Democrats and the Liberals have pledged to tackle inflation, curb price gouging, and address child poverty. Leaders like Jagmeet Singh have railed against corporate greed while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has introduced programs claiming to feed your children.

But despite these announcements, food affordability remains a serious problem in Canada. If our political leaders are truly committed to making nutritious food accessible for all Canadians, they must confront the largely ignored factor: Canada’s supply management system.

Supply Management Hurts Families

Supply management, which governs the production and pricing of dairy, eggs, and poultry in Canada, was designed  to stabilize farmers’ incomes. However, it now acts as an unnecessary burden on consumers, artificially inflating the cost of essential food items. Farmers are given strict quotas on how much they can produce, and sky-high tariffs—often more than 200%—are imposed on imports.

This creates a closed market that keeps prices far higher than in a free-market system. According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management. This is no small sum to households already feeling the pinch.

To put it in perspective, a litre of milk in Canada costs between $1.50-$2.50, compared to USD 1.00 (around $1.35 CAD) in the United States, where such market controls don’t exist. The cost of other staples, such as eggs and chicken, follows the same pattern, with Canadians paying significantly more than their American counterparts.

These artificially high prices disproportionately affect families struggling. As inflation continues to drive up the cost of housing, fuel, and other essentials, paying extra for basic food becomes the tipping point between having three meals a day or skipping meals to cover rent or bills.

The Conservative Opportunity: Free Markets and Family Values

The Conservative Party has historically championed free markets and policies promoting family well-being, but they also support the food cartels.

In a genuinely free market, prices are determined by supply and demand, leading to lower consumer costs and more production efficiency. Ending supply management would achieve both goals.

While Conservatives have long supported free markets, they have been reluctant to challenge supply management, largely due to political concerns in Quebec, where the system is popular among producers. Being pro-trade and supporting supply management are incongruous political positions.

However, with the Conservatives drawing closer to forming government, potentially without significant electoral support from Quebec, now is the time for a strategic shift. Shedding the protectionist policies would be a bold and forward-thinking move to distinguish the party as serious about free markets and family welfare.

It would also send a powerful message to voters across the country, particularly in regions where food insecurity is rising. Conservatives could frame the policy change as a direct effort to reduce food prices, ease the burden on low-income families, and protect Canadian consumers from the high costs supply management imposes.

The Ethical Case: Dumping Food While Canadians Go Hungry

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of supply management is the appalling waste it produces. To keep prices high, in 2023 alone, tens of millions of litres of milk were discarded—wasted food that could have gone to Canadians in need. This is an unconscionable practice in a country where nearly 2 million people rely on food banks to survive. How can wasting food while so many families struggle to afford basic groceries be justified?

This waste flies in the face of compassion and fairness, and contradicts the principles of a free market.

The Bloc Quebecois’ Game

Given that the significant dairy industry in Quebec benefits immensely from supply management, the Bloc Quebecois is seeking to leverage the weakness of the Trudeau minority in exchange for a Bloc bill, Bill C-282, that would shield supply management from future changes.  The Bloc Québécois Bill C-282 wants to amend the Trade and Development Act. Reportedly, it has support from all parties in Parliament.

One of the key setbacks is the restriction supply management places on open market access. It hinders the ability to fully embrace free trade agreements. A primary objectives of Bill C-282 is to prevent the Canadian government from making concessions in international trade agreements that could undermine the supply management system. This is particularly relevant in trade negotiations where foreign countries often seek increased access to Canada’s agricultural markets.

Consequently, this limits the potential for growth in agricultural exports. Central Canada benefits the most from supply management, and although its trade reverberations hurt everyone, they seem to hurt Western producers the most.

A Call to Action for All Parties

For New Democrats and Liberals, the solution to supporting families and children through food affordability lies  in targeting alleged corporate greed and expanding social programs. But if they are serious about addressing child poverty and food insecurity, they would confront supply management. Likewise, for Conservatives, ending supply management is a natural extension of their free-market impetus and commitment to family values.

The time for change is now. Regardless of party, all political leaders should recognize that dismantling supply management would be a direct, meaningful step toward making food more affordable for all Canadians, as well as maximizing agricultural chances to expand Canada’s exports. With the rising cost of living pushing more families into food insecurity, we cannot afford to let outdated policies continue to inflate prices, immorally perpetuate waste, and curtail chances for greater growth in Agrifoods.

Dismantling supply management would offer tangible relief to millions of Canadian consumers, particularly low-income families.  All other parties should start by killing Bill C-282.

Marco Navarro-Génie is the Vice President of Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy