The US doesn't take us seriously because we don't take ourselves seriously

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,676
828
113
Washington DC
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,949
2,923
113
Olympus Mons
Thank you.

This interests me because I look at it from an American point of view, and we have just about zero restrictions on interstate commerce. I'm minded to thing they're not good, absent a clear-cut and obvious need for them (what we call a "compelling government interest").
They aren't good at all. The only "compelling govt interest" I can think of is the loss of tax revenue for the province a product is "imported" to and the differences in provincial sales tax rates. Neither of which are very compelling reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
22,161
3,265
113
B.C.
They aren't good at all. The only "compelling govt interest" I can think of is the loss of tax revenue for the province a product is "imported" to and the differences in provincial sales tax rates. Neither of which are very compelling reasons.
Bean counters don’t need compelling reasons , they just need beans .
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,676
828
113
Washington DC
They aren't good at all. The only "compelling govt interest" I can think of is the loss of tax revenue for the province a product is "imported" to and the differences in provincial sales tax rates. Neither of which are very compelling reasons.
There might be a few good reasons to treat one product, or one geographical or climatic region different from another, with an effect on the state or province that's heavily into that product. In that case, a smart national government makes compensatory moves or finds some other way to spread the load. The "compelling government interest" standard down here means the government has to prove both that the interest it's pursuing is so great that it justifies abrogating rights, and that it has tailored the legislation in the narrowest possible way to meet the interest.

I miss Harper.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
34,611
3,091
113
Vancouver Island
I'll check it out. I'm sure you know I'll decide for myself whether the stated reasons for the bill justify unequal treatment of the provinces.
I don't know if it is still in effect since I am no longer involved, but in the 80s there was a federal fuel tax on boats that only applied to the west coast. The feds also slapped a moratorium on offshore drilling off the west coast only way back in the 70s. That is still in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
34,611
3,091
113
Vancouver Island
There might be a few good reasons to treat one product, or one geographical or climatic region different from another, with an effect on the state or province that's heavily into that product. In that case, a smart national government makes compensatory moves or finds some other way to spread the load. The "compelling government interest" standard down here means the government has to prove both that the interest it's pursuing is so great that it justifies abrogating rights, and that it has tailored the legislation in the narrowest possible way to meet the interest.

I miss Harper.
Most of them were designed to protect industries in Ontario and Quebec. Things like the Crow rate, which made it more expensive to ship manufactured good East on the same rail cars that brought goods west. Or Dairy Quotas that protect milk and chese producers from upstarts in the west.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,676
828
113
Washington DC
It is if you are an OntariOWE politician.
I'm reminded of a scene from Due South where Fraser and Lt. Thatcher are talking about going back to Canada. He's envisioning a cabin in the woods of the Northwest Territories, and she talks about how pleasant it is to have a latte at a sidewalk cafe in TO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave