Federal Carbon Tax ruled to be constitutional


Decapoda
+3
#1
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federa...ourt-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
+2
#2
SK court of appeal does not have the final say for Canada.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#3
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
+2
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

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
Free Thinker
+2
#5
Yes, fakenews AND bad science are cons...titutional.

Until moral improves, beatings will continue.


Enjoy.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+3
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

Yes, fakenews AND bad science are cons...titutional.

Until moral improves, beatings will continue.
Enjoy.

You are so accurate with the above comment. Western alienation is exactly what you are describing. I don’t think it’s even begun to get ugly yet...
 
petros
+4
#7
I would have figured it would have been 5-0 if Climate Change was so do or die.

3-2 is a maybe.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

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!!
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#9
Hehehehehe...somebody thinks the ruling is about the science of climate change. How cute.
 
petros
+3
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

....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
[SIZE=2]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.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

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

Is that all ?
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Is that all ?

Annually
 
petros
+2
#13
The environment will balance it's self.
 
Hoid
#14
itself
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

The environment will balance it's self.

Thinks he's a an expert on climate. Struggles to grasp the English language
 
Hoid
#16
The internet.

It makes everyone just as smart as everyone else.
 
Decapoda
+4
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

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.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

Yes, fakenews AND bad science are cons...titutional.

Until moral improves, beatings will continue.


Enjoy.

Here's the actual ruling if anyone is interested: http://sasklawcourts.ca/images/docum...019SKCA040.pdf
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

I would have figured it would have been 5-0 if Climate Change was so do or die.

3-2 is a maybe.

The LINK above to the ruling is pretty dry, but the last 20 or so pages (starting on page 133 for the Analysis) are the meat and potatoes of the document.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#20
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?
 
Decapoda
+5
#21  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

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?

Haven't you been paying attention? The global climate "thermostat" is controlled by carbon dioxide...which we apparently would have complete control over if you would just cooperate and buy into the new religion. You're holding up our ability to control the weather.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#22
Saskatchewan carbon capture facility likely to fall short of annual target: CEO
 
Hoid
#23
So does this also mean that the provincial carbon taxes are also constitutional?
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+3
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

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.

Never mind the math, if everyone is getting back more than they pay, how exactly will a carbon tax reduce emissions? If I have more disposable income next year than I did this year because of the carbon tax rebate, how does it curb my spending on emission generating products? And that's just one person, multiply that by the millions of Canadians who will supposedly be getting more back than they paid out.

If the carbon tax is entirely legal to force on the provinces and it is for entirely altruistic reasons, then why all the lies about it from the assholes syphoning it out of our wallets? Because that's what Groper does. He and his minions, who call themselves Team:Trudeau, are clearly incapable of telling the truth about anything. And I gotta wonder, considering the Liberals have demonstrated they have no problem with attempting to obstruct justice, if the three judges who voted in favour were somehow "pressured" to do so.
 
Hoid
#25
There are 40 national and 20 sub national carbon taxes

If someone was really interested in how they are supposed to work why on earth wouldn't they just go and find out?

I's because they don;t care how they work. They only care that they are something they are supposed to be against and so they are.

White natty 101
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#26
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
???????????????


??????????????
 
Johnnny
No Party Affiliation
+1
#27
It's gotta be doing something because with some of this extended cooler weather it's paying itself off.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The internet.
It makes everyone just as smart as everyone else.

So what happened to you?
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

So does this also mean that the provincial carbon taxes are also constitutional?

Not necessarily. Nor does it mean a change of government cannot cancel it.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Not necessarily. Nor does it mean a change of government cannot cancel it.

Once a tax is in, the next government will not remove it...


Remember the famous words "I spit on the GST"?