Alberta is taking Ottawa to the Federal Court once again, this time claiming the “carve-out” for the federal carbon tax on home heating oil is unconstitutional, unlawful and wildly unfair.

Tuesday’s announcement was nicely timed to get that message to nearly 6,000 UCP conventioneers expected in Red Deer this coming weekend.

Premier Danielle Smith faces a leadership vote. Anything anti-Ottawa has a calming effect on the resistance.

Smith didn’t mention the convention. Instead, she pinned the timing on the first birthday of the tax exemption that was announced Oct. 26, 2023.

Smith’s move is certainly political, but so what? The carve-out itself was brutally and blatantly political. Smith is right to attack one of the most egregious, regionally unfair measures the Trudeau Liberals have ever adopted.

Luckily, the feds were hilariously inept about it.

Several Liberal ministers and MPs from Atlantic Canada went to see Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, arguing for this tax break.

He granted it. The Liberals are desperately worried about losing their Atlantic edge.

This backstory emerged when Gudie Hutchings, a Newfoundland and Labrador minister, crowed about the tax break, saying westerners should elect Liberals if they wanted breaks of their own.

She launched a rolling political disaster that undermined support for the carbon tax. Even New Democrats began to abandon it.

But the carve-out is still in place. Happy anniversary, heating oil burners of Atlantic Canada. For two more years, you are rewarded for burning the dirtiest home heating fuel since the age of coal.

Lingering defenders of the carbon tax often point out that heating oil is used outside Atlantic Canada.

True enough. But usage ranges from about one per cent of fuel burned in western Canada; to somewhat higher in Ontario and Quebec; to sky-high in Atlantic Canada (40 per cent in P.E.I, according to Smith).

This was clearly a break for one region — that’s why Liberal MPs from the region asked for it!

Smith now asks the court to rule that the carve-out not only violates Ottawa’s own carbon tax legislation, but tramples the principle of regional fairness in taxation.

Another Alberta challenge is also in the works, and it’s much more important to the country as a whole.

On Oct. 4, Smith gave Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault four weeks to respond to her demand for major changes to his amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

There has been no response. Smith’s next legal action could drop within days.

In the annals of bigfoot Liberal legislation, there’s nothing to match Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act.

Alberta and other provinces took it to the Supreme Court. They won a significant victory over Ottawa’s claim to regulate even in-province projects like roads.

Ottawa dragged its feet for many months, but Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault finally brought in amendments.

They received Royal Assent June 20. The Liberals maintain these amendments satisfy the Supreme Court ruling.

But Smith insists they are also illegal because they do not remedy the Supreme Court’s objections.

Federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault at an infrastructure announcement at the Centre St-Pierre in Montreal on Thursday, March 7, 2024.John Mahoney/Montreal Gazette

In the middle of all this, if you can believe it, Ottawa suddenly granted an Impact Assessment carve-out to Ontario.

Guilbeault had imposed the Act on Premier Doug Ford’s proposed Highway 413, a 60-kilometre project designed to take pressure off gridlocked Toronto.

Ottawa claimed approval rights, based on federal environmental assessments.

Ford hotly objected. This was a road wholly within provincial boundaries, none of Ottawa’s business. The premier asked for a judicial review of the federal designation.

In April, Guilbeault agreed to drop the federal assessment and collaborate with Ontario.

He gave up approval power under the Impact law two months before the Liberals passed amendments they say corrected its faults.

That’s a carve-out as political as the carbon tax exemption.

With the Liberals, it’s one standard for the Atlantic provinces, another standard for Ontario — and who knows what standards to come for other places where they need votes.

Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald

X: @DonBraid