Federal Carbon Tax ruled to be constitutional

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federal-carbon-tax-is-constitutional-saskatchewan-s-appeal-court-1.4406418

REGINA - Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal has ruled in a split decision that a federally imposed carbon tax is constitutional.

The Saskatchewan Party government had asked the court for its opinion on the levy that came into effect April 1 in provinces without a carbon price of their own.

In a 155-page decision on the reference case, Chief Justice Robert Richards writes that establishing minimum national standards for a price on greenhouse gas emissions falls under federal jurisdiction.



Well...there we go. Bend over Canada, you're getting rammed by Trudeau's carbon tax whether you like it or not.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
SK court of appeal does not have the final say for Canada.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,299
5,726
113
Twin Moose Creek
I imagine we will have to wait for the other Provincial court challenges before sending it to the Supreme court
I thought it would have been a no brainer, Feds. are going to nationalize oil through the environment at this rate.
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
SK court of appeal does not have the final say for Canada.

Good thing. Being a reference case however, it doesn't lay solid groundwork for other upcoming provincial challenges, never mind the Supreme Court review.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
Yes, fakenews AND bad science are cons...titutional.
:)
Until moral improves, beatings will continue.


Enjoy.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,827
7,779
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I would have figured it would have been 5-0 if Climate Change was so do or die.

3-2 is a maybe.
....but if the cases in MB & ON have a similiar outcome, perhaps this doesn't even get to the Supreme Court.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-why-albertas-discontent-with-canada-is-harder-to-quell-than-quebecs

Canadians are used to taking seriously the threat of separation when it comes to Quebec, but a more serious, less manageable form of conflict may eventually emerge in the federation between Western Canada and the rest of Canada. The Canadian government has been successful so far in managing the “conflict of taste” that has led to Quebec’s historic discomfort in the Canadian federation, because the federal government possesses the tools to address that challenge. But it does not have the same tools to manage the “conflict of claim” that is creating increased dissatisfaction with Confederation in the West. The result is that Canada is a less stable federation than many observers realize.

Interestingly, the future of our unity depends largely on whether the West is able to establish a lasting political alliance with Ontario, even though that would mean Quebec no longer being critical for national coalitions.

Conflicts of taste revolve around differences in political preferences between regions within a federation. Quebec is animated by a different culture, history and language than the rest of Canada, which has created a conflict of taste. But legislative mechanisms exist to help mitigate that friction, including: Provincial powers over key cultural institutions such as education and health, special fiscal and immigration arrangements for Quebec, guaranteed bilingualism in federal institutions and tax-collection powers unique to Quebec. Quebec’s ability to wield federal power through a Central Canadian alliance with Ontario has also helped partially alleviate the province’s discomfort within Confederation.

Conflicts of claim are more difficult because they involve disputes over “sharing the wealth” (as opposed to building wealth together). These arise when a smaller, richer region is called on to transfer wealth to larger, poorer regions within a federation. The obvious example is the way that Alberta and other resource-rich parts of the West have been made to subsidize the rest of Canada through equalization, tax and numerous other net contributions to the federal system.

Because of the difference in populations, it takes significant transfers from the smaller, richer provinces in order to have a material per capita impact on the more populated poorer regions. Meanwhile the larger, poorer regions (in Canada’s case, Quebec in particular) can control through their political voting power the size of the transfers they wish to extract from the smaller, richer region. In these arrangements, conflict arises when the smaller, richer region feels as if the benefits from being part of a federation are outweighed by the cost of serving as a largely powerless cash cow.

This could feasibly become the case for Alberta, which is called on to provide other provinces with massive wealth transfers, even as other provinces have worked to hurt Alberta’s economy both through past policies — such as the National Energy Program — and recent ones, such as B.C. and Quebec’s opposition to allowing Alberta oil to be transported for export through their provinces. Even with the federal commitment to building the Trans Mountain pipeline (while B.C. attempts to block it and Alberta considers retaliatory measures against B.C.), Alberta as well as Saskatchewan feel their prosperity is being existentially threatened. Investment is stymied by stifling federal policies, including cumbersome regulatory processes, clean fuel standards and looming tanker bans.

Unfortunately Canada, notably, lacks formal institutions that provide small regions like Alberta with proper federal representation, such as an elected and powerful Senate, as exists in the U.S. and Australia. But several actions taken by both federal and provincial governments could still help avoid a looming constitutional crisis arising from conflict of claim. Much of the accommodation will need to occur using federal-provincial co-ordination mechanisms.

Specifically, the federal government should avoid top-down policies and instead seek co-operative agreements with the provinces in areas of regulatory, carbon and fiscal policy to avoid conflicts of claim. As I have argued with Janice MacKinnon on this page (Financial Post, January 8, 2019), rather than forcing its preference for a carbon tax onto the provinces, it would be appropriate for the federal government to develop a set of emission-reduction targets with the provinces via a federal-provincial agreement. Each province would agree to its own credible plan that would reach the target the way it prefers to reach it, rather than the federal government dictating the means to achieve the objective. Similarly, a regulatory federal-provincial agreement should be pursued based on best-in-class regulatory approaches for resource development, such as those used in other countries (for example, Australia).

The federal government should also revamp its almost inoperative provincial stabilization program to better help provinces that face sharp declines in revenues, as Alberta and Saskatchewan did during the last commodity-price crash. This includes removing limits that only allow the fund dispense an insignificant maximum of $60 per capita (that’s less than a quarter-billion dollars for Alberta, a province with more than $300 billion in annual GDP) and that exclude resource revenues from being considered in the stabilization formula. This should at least partially quell objections in the West over equalization, which does a poor job at sharing economic risks.

Alberta should also consider a new deal for more fiscal flexibility. It should push for federal cash transfers to be converted into personal tax points, as in Quebec, giving the province a bigger share of the personal income tax. This would enable Alberta to have more control over its tax system, which has been critical to the province in attracting skilled labour and dealing with volatile resource prices.

Given the current dissatisfaction the West over the fairness of the federation, it appears all too likely that the upcoming federal election will involve politicians pitting provinces and regions against one another on the question of resource development. That would be a pity. Canada needs federal leadership working with our provincial governments to reduce tensions arising from conflict of claim in Canada, or the outcome could get ugly.

Doesn't this sound familiar? Given the current dissatisfaction the West over the fairness of the federation, it appears all too likely that the upcoming federal election will involve politicians pitting provinces and regions against one another on the question of resource development. This is exactly what is happening in the Western Three Provinces Currently!!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,177
113
Low Earth Orbit
....but if the cases in MB & ON have a similiar outcome, perhaps this doesn't even get to the Supreme Court.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-why-albertas-discontent-with-canada-is-harder-to-quell-than-quebecs
Canadians are used to taking seriously the threat of separation when it comes to Quebec, but a more serious, less manageable form of conflict

SEPARATION? We never even divorced Quebec but still pay $13B in alimony.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
The internet.

It makes everyone just as smart as everyone else.
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
The environment will balance it's self.

Listening to Ralph Goodale try and sell this albatross by declaring that everyone is going to get more money back than they pay, it's obvious this strategy is based on Trudeau math...2 subtract 1 equals... uhhh ... umm... 1.5.

Reminds me of George Orwell's 1984...

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?' Four.

'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?' Four...The word ended in a gasp of pain.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
Now that we have technology, I am waiting for the the two mile high ice caps and the seas to rise 400 feet...
:)
...Again.

If it's so called 'climate change', what's the plan if the change is for colder?