This is in no way an endorsement of the federal Liberal government’s carbon tax.

It’s somewhat reminiscent of the debate more than a decade ago over the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Similarly, the then Jean Chretien-Paul Martin federal Liberal government failed to absorb just how much of an effect it was having on those who made their living from a specific sector.

While many took philosophical offense to a state-owned agency dictating their marketing decisions, the problem was the practical reality that today’s farmers were already nimbly marketing non-board grains, pulse crops and oilseeds.

But today’s carbon tax debate is actually more nuanced. Some in the oil industry are actually supportive of carbon pricing. Heck, even the Sask. Party government passed 2010 legislation to that effect.

[emember_protected for=”2″ custom_msg=’For more on this story, please see the Mar. 16 print edition of The Cross Roads.’]

The problem in both debates, however, has been hyper-partisanship with little or no acknowledgement of other issues that may have been in play.

It its true that many farmers have quite successfully marketed their grain since the CWB demise.

But with problems moving grain by rail, on-going struggle with grain, oilseed and pulse prices sometimes caused by tariffs imposed elsewhere, problems remain.

Proponents of the CWB go as far as insisting its demise has left agriculture with one less tool to directly or indirectly deal with these problems – especially the problem of grain movement.

This is debatable. But given farmers’ recent demands for implementation of Bill C-49 to get the grain cars moving, there remains a review that there’s a time and place for government intervention.

Again, the same elements are in play with the carbon tax. And with it in the works, the Sask. Party government would be remiss if it didn’t express its opposition to legitimate concerns. According to Premier Scott Moe, it will cost Saskatchewan people $4 billion in the next five years.

But simply opting out of a policy implemented by a duly elected federal government is not as easy an option as the Sask. Party government suggests.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna told Moe’s government:

“To be clear, we cannot accept your request not to price carbon in Saskatchewan. Among other reasons, it would be patently unfair for one jurisdiction to avoid participating in this important national effort to support clean growth and cut pollution.”

The letter comes in response to Environment Minister Dustin Duncan saying this province wouldn’t sign on, but still wanted $62 million for signing on.

As for Saskatchewan’s claim that its own Prairie Resilience: A Made-in-Saskatchewan Climate Change Strategy, McKenna noted the provincial plan offers no carbon pricing solution and lowers the threshold of what is considered a “heavy emitter” from 50,000 tonnes of emissions to 25,000 tonnes.

With an economy so reliant on agriculture, oil and mining and with the bulk of electrical power being generation by coal-fired plants, there is no question Saskatchewan needs to ensure the issues of industry are considered.

But does that mean the province has no obligation to ensure heavy emitters are reducing GHG? Is there nothing to be discussed or negotiated that could still benefit Saskatchewan people?

Last week, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale’s argument did talk about how GHG absorbing carbon sinks on farms will offset those per tonne emission charges. He also noted money could go to lower farm property taxes or other programs that could make agriculture more viable.

Yet Moe and company see this as a matter that can only now be dealt with in court?

The Manitoba government recently signed on to the climate strategy because it viewed a constitutional challenge of the federal law as throwing good money after bad.

That leaves Saskatchewan as the lone holdout with no options … other than actually sitting down with the feds.

Negotiating should always be a viable option.

[/emember_protected] carbon tax