Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe (or his staff) penned an op-ed in the National Post yesterday, to explain why he thinks Canadians are opposed to the federal government’s planned carbon tax. The reasons, however, are…not convincing. Nor are his counter-claims about what the alternatives are. And to be fair, almost nobody likes taxes, which is why leaders like Moe have been casting any kind of carbon price in as negative a light as possible in order to turn public sentiment against them. And we can’t ignore that most Canadians want to fight climate change like they want a pony – they say they want to do it, but don’t actually want to undertake any of the responsibility that goes with it.

As for Moe’s arguments, he decries the carbon price as a “one-size-fits-all” approach, which is bogus off the start. The price does not indicate the mechanism by which it’s implemented, whether that’s cap-and-trade or a tax, and how those systems are set up and administered can vary greatly, particularly in how the revenues are recycled. That’s why the federal government gave provinces the space to design a system that fits their particular circumstances best. So right off the start, Moe is being intellectually dishonest in his argument. And as for the stated goal of reducing emissions, a carbon price is not only about reducing emissions – it’s about giving a market signal so that major emitters can drive innovation to reduce their emissions and avoid paying it (you know, something a fiscal conservative would recognise, were Moe actually one and not a populist goof), and it ensures that everyday consumers make choices to reduce their emissions. If you see people lining up at gas stations when the price drops a few cents, imagine what price indicators mean when it comes to other behaviours.

Moe keeps pointing to his province’s investment in carbon capture and storage, which has not yet proven itself cost-effective as a technology, but ironically would be more cost-effective if there was a carbon price that would help to better monetize its value. He talks about designing an offset system that would recognise carbon sinks in agriculture, but again, having a price allows this recognition to be better tracked and monetized, which again, provides incentives. You’d think this would be elementary stuff to someone who purports to be a fiscal conservative that believes in the free market. But that’s not what Moe is (nor is Doug Ford or Andrew Scheer for that matter), and they need to justify how they’re rejecting actual fiscal conservative measures.

Good reads:

• Maclean’s checks in on Trudeau’s personal branding in light of recent events, most notably in how he defines himself against Trump.
• Those US-Mexico trade talks that Canada was left out of? Our officials insist they’re the two countries working out sticking points, nothing to worry about.
• Chrystia Freeland is off to Singapore to talk Rohingya refugees and North Korean nuclear missiles.
• Public Safety Canada wants to remind you that using a 3D printer to make a gun is illegal in Canada.
• The new citizenship guide remains in limbo, citing yet more “consultations.”
• On the government’s mandate tracker, half of the “Underway with challenges” files are ones that deal with Indigenous issues.
• The federal government’s harassment legislation will take many more months to get the regulations in place.
• The Senate’s national finance committee released their own report on the Phoenix debacle, and focused a great deal on the problems in the culture of the civil service.
• Ruh-roh. It turns out that the Senate wasn’t given a copy of a report that pointed to asbestos in the Centre Block that was completed four years ago.
• The veterans’ ombudsman’s latest report points to yet more challenges in accessing benefits, and communicating programmes to veterans.
• The body that oversees polling companies in Canada is shutting down citing financial difficulties.
• Susan Delacourt points out that the latest party fundraising figures are a reminder that anger drives dollars more than positive politics.
• Paul Wells recounts the bizarre meltdown that took place in Queen’s Park’s Question Period yesterday.
• My column looks at the perverse outcomes that can happen when you decide that we need fewer politicians. It rarely enhances democracy.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.