# In split decision, Supreme Court says the federal carbon price is constitutional



## shawn5o (25 Mar 2021)

In split decision, Supreme Court says the federal carbon price is constitutional
					

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the national price on pollution is entirely constitutional, upholding a pivotal piece of the Liberal climate-change plan.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Mia Rabson

Published Thursday, March 25, 2021 4:27AM EDTLast Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021 10:25AM EDT

OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada says the federal carbon price is entirely constitutional.

The split decision upholds a pivotal part of the Liberal climate-change plan, accounting for at least one-third of the emissions Canada aims to cut over the next decade.

Chief Justice Richard Wagner says in the written ruling that climate change is a real danger and evidence shows a price on pollution is a critical element in addressing it.

More at link above


Question - Where does the carbon tax go? Is there a climate change revenue or does it end up in General Revenue?

I suspect the latter


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Mar 2021)

Of course it will end up in General Revenue. The point people are missing here is that regardless of pledges to "tax polluters", there's only one source of tax revenue, and that's the individual. This is a pure trickle down tax where average Joe and Jane are going to feel the pinch.


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

shawn5o said:


> In split decision, Supreme Court says the federal carbon price is constitutional
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the national price on pollution is entirely constitutional, upholding a pivotal piece of the Liberal climate-change plan.
> ...


90 percent of it is being rebated back to consumers at tax time.


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Of course it will end up in General Revenue. The point people are missing here is that regardless of pledges to "tax polluters", there's only one source of tax revenue, and that's the individual. This is a pure trickle down tax where average Joe and Jane are going to feel the pinch.


It's being rebated back to consumers at tax time in the provinces where it is in effect.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2021)

It is supposed to be revenue-neutral (the aforementioned rebates).  I'm skeptical that will work out very well, or last for very long.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Mar 2021)

Why take it if it's just going to be given back? That seems like unnecessary work.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Mar 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Why take it if it's just going to be given back? That seems like unnecessary work.



Because: Politics


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (25 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> 90 percent of it is being rebated back to consumers at tax time.


 
According to a couple online calculators I've used, they consistently say that I'll be getting $900 rebated back for my family of 7.

There's no way that our cost of living and the carbon taxes I've paid went up by a mere $1000 since the tax was implemented when you look at how much the cost of food and fuel alone have gone up since the tax was implemented. Now, granted, not 100% of that increase was due to carbon tax, but certainly more than $1000 of the total increase I've experienced was due to Carbon Tax.

If they truly think that crushing people under a massive tax burden will safe the environment then just admit it instead of pretending they're giving this money back. I understand that in some peoples' view I am a horrible evil destroyer of the planet for having 5 children and if in their ideology that means I deserve to pay an extra tax penalty then I can at least respect the consistency and honesty.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Mar 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> According to a couple online calculators I've used, they consistently say that I'll be getting $900 rebated back for my family of 7.
> 
> There's no way that our cost of living and the carbon taxes I've paid went up by a mere $1000 since the tax was implemented when you look at how much the cost of food and fuel alone have gone up since the tax was implemented. Now, granted, not 100% of that increase was due to carbon tax, but certainly more than $1000 of the total increase I've experienced was due to Carbon Tax.
> 
> If they truly think that crushing people under a massive tax burden will safe the environment then just admit it instead of pretending they're giving this money back. I understand that in some peoples' view I am a horrible evil destroyer of the planet for having 5 children and if in their ideology that means I deserve to pay an extra tax penalty then I can at least respect the consistency and honesty.



You do know what party is in power right now, don't you?


----------



## shawn5o (25 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> 90 percent of it is being rebated back to consumers at tax time.



It depends on your province. But the point you miss (IMO) is the rising cost of everything else because of the tax. Food has gone up, transportation has gone up, probably more examples.


----------



## shawn5o (25 Mar 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> According to a couple online calculators I've used, they consistently say that I'll be getting $900 rebated back for my family of 7.
> 
> There's no way that our cost of living and the carbon taxes I've paid went up by a mere $1000 since the tax was implemented when you look at how much the cost of food and fuel alone have gone up since the tax was implemented. Now, granted, not 100% of that increase was due to carbon tax, but certainly more than $1000 of the total increase I've experienced was due to Carbon Tax.
> 
> If they truly think that crushing people under a massive tax burden will safe the environment then just admit it instead of pretending they're giving this money back. I understand that in some peoples' view I am a horrible evil destroyer of the planet for having 5 children and if in their ideology that means I deserve to pay an extra tax penalty then I can at least respect the consistency and honesty.



Well said LBD


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Why take it if it's just going to be given back? That seems like unnecessary work.


Because higher prices still shape behavior. 

If it costs more, you will not get as much (in cases where you don't have a choice) as the price will be foremost on your mind, not your yearly rebate at tax time.


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> According to a couple online calculators I've used, they consistently say that I'll be getting $900 rebated back for my family of 7.
> 
> There's no way that our cost of living and the carbon taxes I've paid went up by a mere $1000 since the tax was implemented when you look at how much the cost of food and fuel alone have gone up since the tax was implemented. Now, granted, not 100% of that increase was due to carbon tax, but certainly more than $1000 of the total increase I've experienced was due to Carbon Tax.
> 
> If they truly think that crushing people under a massive tax burden will safe the environment then just admit it instead of pretending they're giving this money back. I understand that in some peoples' view I am a horrible evil destroyer of the planet for having 5 children and if in their ideology that means I deserve to pay an extra tax penalty then I can at least respect the consistency and honesty.


You need to separate what went up due to the carbon tax and what when up because things got more expensive. At 20 dollars per ton in ontario, it cost me 4.4 cents more a litre. I get about 60 litres every 2 weeks, so 2.64 cents more for 60 litres, and 68 dollars a year. My wife has a smaller vehicle, and gets by with about 45 litres every 2 weeks. 51 dollars a year. toss in what we pay for heating, maybe another 100 over the course of a year. so 219 more. I got 300 back.

I know the prices because the ford government put the price change on the pump.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (25 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> You need to separate what went up due to the carbon tax and what when up because things got more expensive. At 20 dollars per ton in ontario, it cost me 4.4 cents more a litre. I get about 60 litres every 2 weeks, so 2.64 cents more for 60 litres, and 68 dollars a year. My wife has a smaller vehicle, and gets by with about 45 litres every 2 weeks. 51 dollars a year. toss in what we pay for heating, maybe another 100 over the course of a year. so 219 more. I got 300 back.
> 
> I know the prices because the ford government put the price change on the pump.



I did indicate that I accept that the Carbon Tax is not the only reason my cost of living has gone up, however, you cannot exclude the carbon tax from the reason why "things got more expensive". No way are the grocery stores, shipping companies, etc. just absorbing the cost. It's being passed 100% along to the consumer, therefore, I have paid carbon tax on a lot more than just the fuel for my car and heat for my house. 

As for altering behaviour, I can understand that when it is levied on luxury items or things that are not necessary. But people can't stop eating or going to work so they cannot avoid that carbon tax. I think a valid concern is that the poorest people in Canadian society are disproportionately impacted by these sorts of taxes because they are the ones who have the least money spent on non essentials so they are paying taxes on things they cannot avoid.


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> I did indicate that I accept that the Carbon Tax is not the only reason my cost of living has gone up, however, you cannot exclude the carbon tax from the reason why "things got more expensive". No way are the grocery stores, shipping companies, etc. just absorbing the cost. It's being passed 100% along to the consumer, therefore, I have paid carbon tax on a lot more than just the fuel for my car and heat for my house.
> 
> As for altering behaviour, I can understand that when it is levied on luxury items or things that are not necessary. But people can't stop eating or going to work so they cannot avoid that carbon tax. I think a valid concern is that the poorest people in Canadian society are disproportionately impacted by these sorts of taxes because they are the ones who have the least money spent on non essentials so they are paying taxes on things they cannot avoid.


I don't know what the average cost of things due to the carbon tax would have been. 

another 100 dollars for me maybe? 150? I have no idea. either way, I know for me it would still likely fall within the 90 percent back, at least for me.

this would be a moot point if the province of Ontario would implement their own plan. Nobody is talking about the carbon tax in quebec because quebec has their own plan. One that doesn't include rebates.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (25 Mar 2021)

Poor decision by the Supreme Court. The 1867 Constitution is clear as to what is a provincial power and what isn't. If they want that changed they should have to open up the Constitution to allow for it, not have the courts create laws. I also question the legality of having our chief justice acting as Governor General and how they can even pretend to be impartial with that all on the go.


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Poor decision by the Supreme Court. The 1867 Constitution is clear as to what is a provincial power and what isn't. If they want that changed they should have to open up the Constitution to allow for it, not have the courts create laws. I also question the legality of having our chief justice acting as Governor General and how they can even pretend to be impartial with that all on the go.


"peace, order and good government" means they can step in when provinces are not doing it themselves.

I mean, its hard to have a national plan on climate when not everyone is playing ball.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (25 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> "peace, order and good government" means they can step in when provinces are not doing it themselves.
> 
> I mean, its hard to have a national plan on climate when not everyone is playing ball.


Huh we have survived for over 150 years without this being a issue and now all of a sudden its top priority? 

And just because you don't agree with what a Province is doing doesn't mean they aren't playing ball. Last I checked all these provinces have environmental controls in place. They have decided as to what is reasonable to them. Adding a random tax does nothing to help the environment, especially when it results in the closing of Canadian businesses and the importation of products made with no or next to no environmental controls from countries such as China, India, etc. (which has no carbon tax applied to them). 

The Provinces have met the requirement for good government, just because the Federal Government isn't satisifed with that doesn't mean they have failed in their responsibilities, if anything they have done exactly what they are supposed to as they don't answer to the Federal Government on this matter.

What about if all of a sudden the Federal Government decides to have a National Education Plan even though it is clearly a Provincial responsibility? What if its for 'Peace, Order, and Good Government'? 

I don't think this is a national issue as written in our Constitution. Change the Constitution if that is what you believe but I don't buy into these catch all phrases. Our Constitution exists to ensure one side doesn't have the power to bully the others. It clearly defines who has what powers. Yet for the last 50 years or so the Federal government has been encroaching more and more into Provincial matters. Just because all the wedge issues people tend to care about are Provincial responsibilities doesn't mean the Federal government can usurp their powers.  Two judges understand what their jobs are, enforce the laws and Constitution as written. The others not so much.


----------



## brihard (25 Mar 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Poor decision by the Supreme Court. The 1867 Constitution is clear as to what is a provincial power and what isn't. If they want that changed they should have to open up the Constitution to allow for it, not have the courts create laws. I also question the legality of having our chief justice acting as Governor General and how they can even pretend to be impartial with that all on the go.



That's... No. You just aren't in accordance with the actual constitution on this. No new law was made here. The Supreme Court ruled on a matter clearly falling within one of the existing sources of constitutional authority, that of Peace, Order and Good Government. This is certainly not the first time that a matter has not been found to fall within one of the enumerated heads of power in sections 91 and 92 that divide power explicitly between the provinces and the federal level, and where it has been addressed as a national concern. It's not even the first time that has been this case where federal environmental laws were argued to potentially infringe upon provincial constitutional authority. R v. Crown Zellerbach in 1988 dealt with exactly that.



Eaglelord17 said:


> I don't think this is a national issue as written in our Constitution. Change the Constitution if that is what you believe but I don't buy into these catch all phrases. Our Constitution exists to ensure one side doesn't have the power to bully the others. It clearly defines who has what powers. Yet for the last 50 years or so the Federal government has been encroaching more and more into Provincial matters. Just because all the wedge issues people tend to care about are Provincial responsibilities doesn't mean the Federal government can usurp their powers. Two judges understand what their jobs are, enforce the laws and Constitution as written. The others not so much.



Sections 91 and 92 are not and cannot be exhaustive lists of every possible thing that could ever potentially have to be tackled by a level of government. The absence of something being explicitly listed in either of those sections does not mean government is powerless to act. On the contrary, S. 91 _starts_ with the establishment of authority for Parliament to legislate for the Peace, Order and Good Government of Canada. 

The claim that 'for the past 50 years or so the Federal government has been encroaching more and more into Provincial matters' doesn't hold up. Under our constitution, residual power goes to the federal level, and in fact the history of Constitutional jurisprudence in Canada shows a surprising deference by the courts to the provinces over the feds. Despite that, some matters are clearly of a national interest, and cannot be adequately handled solely by the provinces. Environmental laws that affect things like the air and the inland waterways (again, see _Crown Zellerbach_ are just such an example. It's constitutionally appropriate for the federal legislature to legislate on such things.

Not liking the outcome politically does not make it a legally unsound decision.

Finally,



Eaglelord17 said:


> I also question the legality of having our chief justice acting as Governor General and how they can even pretend to be impartial with that all on the go.


Question it all you want, but the facts are not on your side. The succession for the Governor General, specifically the Chief Justice stepping up, was established in the 1947 Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada. These were issued under royal prerogative and form part of the body of Canadian constitutional documents - that is not just limited to the 1867 and 1982 Constitution Acts. There's no reason to believe that the Chief Justice is incapable of being impartial in his interpretation of a constitutional reference on a piece of legislation simply because he happens to presently have a caretaker role as the acting viceregal.


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> That's... No. You just aren't in accordance with the actual constitution on this. No new law was made here. The Supreme Court ruled on a matter clearly falling within one of the existing sources of constitutional authority, that of Peace, Order and Good Government. This is certainly not the first time that a matter has not been found to fall within one of the enumerated heads of power in sections 91 and 92 that divide power explicitly between the provinces and the federal level, and where it has been addressed as a national concern. It's not even the first time that has been this case where federal environmental laws were argued to potentially infringe upon provincial constitutional authority. R v. Crown Zellerbach in 1988 dealt with exactly that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you, I was going to start responding you covered it very nicely.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (25 Mar 2021)

I am strongly opposed to carbon taxes ...

But from what I remember of Constitutional Law in law school, Brihard is correct. I can't really argue with the SCC's decision.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2021)

> Why take it if it's just going to be given back? That seems like unnecessary work.



The idea is to change behaviour - to encourage people to spend less on carbon-intensive things without penalizing people financially.

Suppose Joe and Jim each spend $300 per year on natural gas for home heating (cost of fuel), and that a carbon tax is introduced at a 50%* rate so the cost to each becomes $450.  

Joe keeps the thermostat where it is, at the end of the year gets a $150 rebate, and breaks even relative to the original $300 cost. 

Jim lowers the thermostat by a couple of degrees and reduces his cost of fuel and tax to $400, at the end of year gets a $150 rebate, and comes out ahead by $50, which makes a small dent in the cost of the extra nose-and-throat misery mitigation compounds consumed by the family during the winter.  (He also puts a brick in his toilet cistern to reduce water per flush, helps conserve water, and pays $150 for a Roto-Rooter service call to deal with the stoppage in the pipes of his old, designed-for-5-gallon-flush, plumbing.)

Of course it's more complicated than that.  The first entities to feel the tax are corporations and businesses, which have a choice between passing the extra cost along (higher prices) or taking measures to reduce fuel consumption in order to reduce the tax burden and hold prices where they are.  They don't get rebates, so they are forced to deal with the pressures of the marketplace (competition between those willing to try pass-along and those willing to seek a price advantage).  They could also choose to pinch employee compensation, cut dividends, re-invest less capital, etc.  We can be sure that whatever it is the mandarins seek to achieve is not the only possible outcome (consequences, unforeseen and sometimes unwanted or undesirable).

*From one Terasen bill in BC: Cost of gas $41.73, carbon tax $21.45.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Mar 2021)

Considering most Chinese goods are made with carbon heavy electricity (coal) I saw we help the environment by levying taxes on Chinese Goods coming into the country.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Mar 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Considering most Chinese goods are made with carbon heavy electricity (coal) I saw we help the environment by levying taxes on Chinese Goods coming into the country.


 Can Norinco be exempt ?  I'm a sucker for their garbage guns and ammo


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Mar 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Considering most Chinese goods are made with *carbon heavy electricity (coal) *I saw we help the environment by levying taxes on Chinese Goods coming into the country.



Which they buy from BC and Alberta I believe, ironically


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Mar 2021)

Hence my customary derision towards people who favour CO2 mitigation but work strenuously to avoid getting natural gas to tidewater and thence to Asia.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Mar 2021)

Intellectually I get the case for the carbon tax as a market-based mitigation tool. Oddly, I take a Marxist view of it as something that penalizes lower income earners 
than the middle and upper classes.

People in lower income brackets tend to own older, less energy efficient vehicles, furnaces and appliances.  Those not in the larger urban centres don’t have access to public transit and possibly have older pick-ups that they need for work. Already, they find it economically difficult to pay for the energy they need and to upgrade to more efficient conveyances. Now with a carbon tax, they will be paying more tax for the energy for their old energy guzzlers, with even less money left to save for more efficient replacements. Even with the rebates, lower income people will have a tough time buying more efficient cars, furnaces and appliances. 

Even as someone squarely in the middle, there is no way I can afford an EV or hybrid that is practical for my needs.


----------



## kev994 (26 Mar 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Intellectually I get the case for the carbon tax as a market-based mitigation tool. Oddly, I take a Marxist view of it as something that penalizes lower income earners
> than the middle and upper classes.
> 
> People in lower income brackets tend to own older, less energy efficient vehicles, furnaces and appliances.  Those not in the larger urban centres don’t have access to public transit and possibly have older pick-ups that they need for work. Already, they find it economically difficult to pay for the energy they need and to upgrade to more efficient conveyances. Now with a carbon tax, they will be paying more tax for the energy for their old energy guzzlers, with even less money left to save for more efficient replacements. Even with the rebates, lower income people will have a tough time buying more efficient cars, furnaces and appliances.
> ...


Manitoba (or rather the Feds on their behalf) has accounted a bit for the lack out transportation alternatives in rural areas, anyone living outside Winnipeg gets a larger refund than those living inside the city.


----------



## Altair (26 Mar 2021)

kev994 said:


> Manitoba (or rather the Feds on their behalf) has accounted a bit for the lack out transportation alternatives in rural areas, anyone living outside Winnipeg gets a larger refund than those living inside the city.


It's almost like they tried to be fair about it while trying to influence behavior.

But to hear a certain party talk about it you would never know.

Although, to his credit, Jason Kenny did say the federal carbon tax was better than the made in Alberta NDP carbon tax because it went to consumers instead of going to green energy projects in Alberta. The first and likely last nice thing he will ever say about it most likely.


----------



## FJAG (27 Mar 2021)

Does anyone else think that putting a tax on producers who merely pass it on to consumers who get the money back more or less through rebates and programs will influence absolutely no one but merely create one more department of civil servants to administer the program?

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> Does anyone else think that putting a tax on producers who merely pass it on to consumers who get the money back more or less through rebates and programs will influence absolutely no one but merely create one more department of civil servants to administer the program?
> 
> 🍻


🤔 

You don’t follow the Global Virtue Signaling League, do you?


----------



## FJAG (27 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> 🤔
> 
> You don’t follow the Global Virtue Signaling League, do you?


I don't think that I do; and I can't ever recall of being accused of that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Mar 2021)

It might achieve some of what is intended.

The fundamental problem is that mitigation sucks up money that used to be spent on other things.  Mitigation is good, but it isn't free.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 Mar 2021)

If they actually cared about the environment the first thing they would do is put heavy tariffs/ban the importation of any product not made to a similar environmental standard as what would be required to manufacture said product in Canada. How does it make sense that we have all these restrictions in Canada, yet allow products that would be illegal to manufacture in Canada the way they are elsewhere into the country? 

It is pretending to do something well in reality creating more emissions as the same goods need to be made, just now less and less of them are being made in countries with stringent controls. It is farming out the emissions/pollution to other countries and pretending that we have reduced our emissions despite using their products, shipped across the world on monstrous containerships (which up to last year was burning enough fuel for about 1 billion vehicles on the road per year, on top of the fact they were burning the worst of the worst fuels, bunker fuel). This is a global issue, pretending to reduce our emissions locally yet doing things that increase them globally isn't solving anything and realistically is just making things worse. 

Pretending this rebate is here to stay is laughable. Every time the government creates a new tax they start with a 'rebate'. Over the course of several years they always slowly decrease it until your paying for all of it but the anger has subsided. 

This is about pretending to do something because it is easier to pretend than actually do what needs to be done, and taxing Canadians more. I am all for environmental controls, but this isn't one of them.


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Pretending this rebate is here to stay is laughable. Every time the government creates a new tax they start with a 'rebate'. Over the course of several years they always slowly decrease it until your paying for all of it but the anger has subsided.


Cross that bridge when we get to it.

So far it is here, which makes most talk about how it's gouging the consumer a bit disingenuous.


----------



## RangerRay (27 Mar 2021)

When the BC Liberals brought in the carbon tax, I had the same concerns as I do now. At least then, they made the tax revenue neutral (income taxes were reduced as carbon tax revenues increased). Then when the NDP came to power, they stopped making it revenue neutral, putting all revenues into “green initiatives”, a slush fund for whatever politicians want to spend that has the veneer of being “green.


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

RangerRay said:


> When the BC Liberals brought in the carbon tax, I had the same concerns as I do now. At least then, they made the tax revenue neutral (income taxes were reduced as carbon tax revenues increased). Then when the NDP came to power, they stopped making it revenue neutral, putting all revenues into “green initiatives”, a slush fund for whatever politicians want to spend that has the veneer of being “green.


The liberals have always been the centralist party.

NDP in BC and Alberta,  non revenue neutral carbon tax.

Liberals in BC and Federally, revenue neutral carbon tax.

Conservatives in large part, no carbon tax.

The good news here being that the NDP has never won at the federal level. The bad news here being that if the NDP wins at the provincial level they will likely put in their own version of the carbon tax that would not be revenue neutral.


----------



## FJAG (27 Mar 2021)

I've been following the comments and see that most of them deal with the regional differences and the various parties' approach to climate change.

My concern is more constitutional and I'm very much on board with the minority opinions of Côté, Brown and Rowe. 

Like Côté, I believe that the legislation in itself is bad as it provides an unfettered power in the governor in council to vary the law in ways that would ordinarily require a return to parliament for legislative approval. These ways are far beyond the ordinary delegations that parliament gives to agencies through regulation making powers.

Over and above that I agree with Brown and Rowe, that there is a clear division of authority as between the federal and provincial governments as to the subject matter of regulating an industry within a province falls clearly and unquestionably within the domain of the provinces. That was accepted by all the judges, but the majority fell back on the catch-all "peace, order and good government" provisions of the Constitution in order to give the Feds an overriding power. IMHO the issue is not one of such "national concern" that the POGG provisions should be attracted. One doesn't have to be a climate change denier to see that whatever actions the provincial or federal governments take, in the big picture, such actions are but a drop in the bucket when one considers the size of Canada and its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in respect to the rest of the world's outputs.

The majority, in this case, have greatly extended the circumstances (which have been narrowly allowed by numerous court rulings in the past) within which the Feds will be granted POGG powers to override provincial authority. This should be a concern to all of us who consider this country a confederation of provinces rather than a monolith central power.

🍻


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> I've been following the comments and see that most of them deal with the regional differences and the various parties' approach to climate change.
> 
> My concern is more constitutional and I'm very much on board with the minority opinions of Côté, Brown and Rowe.
> 
> ...


Ah, but that is where you are blurring the lines.

The red portion is not about the constitutionality of a carbon tax, but the effectiveness,  which the court was not out to judge. 

If climate change is a national problem, can a national strategy be put in place that enters provincial jurisdiction was the question put before the court. Not whether or not it is the right strategy.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2021)

I recall hearing the carbon tax would be taxed, is that a thing?


----------



## FJAG (27 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> Ah, but that is where you are blurring the lines.
> 
> The red portion is not about the constitutionality of a carbon tax, but the effectiveness,  which the court was not out to judge.
> 
> If climate change is a national problem, can a national strategy be put in place that enters provincial jurisdiction was the question put before the court. Not whether or not it is the right strategy.



Just a point for anyone who uses "red" to highlight text they want to draw attention to, I find it almost impossible to read the red text against the green background. I tend to use yellow which stands out for me and is very readable. Sorry Altair, not picking on you but I've found a number of posts from various folks that I really have to strain to make out. Not sure if it's my old eyes or a general problem others have too.

Now to get to the issue. I wasn't saying whether it is the right strategy or not. All I'm saying is that with the scope of the problem world-wide, a federal strategy has little more effectiveness than individual provincial strategies. The question is does this justify over-riding a clear and established provincial jurisdiction over the matter.

Note the following when it comes to POGG which comes from the majorities decision.



> National concern is a well-established but rarely applied doctrine of Canadian constitutional law derived from the introductory clause of s. 91 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.





> Courts must approach a finding that the federal government has jurisdiction on the basis of the national concern doctrine with great caution. The effect of finding that a matter is one of national concern is permanent and confers exclusive jurisdiction over that matter on Parliament.





> a matter of national concern must be based on evidence. An onus rests on Canada throughout the national concern analysis to adduce evidence in support of its assertion of jurisdiction.



Note here that the evidence is not as to the need for a uniform carbon tax scheme but evidence of the fact that the Feds have jurisdiction in this area.



> Finding that a matter is one of national concern involves a three-step analysis. First, as a threshold question, Canada must establish that the matter is of sufficient concern to the country as a whole to warrant consideration as a possible matter of national concern. Second, the matter must have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility. Third, Canada must show that the proposed matter has a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the division of powers. The purpose of the national concern analysis is to identify matters of inherent national concern — matters which, by their nature, transcend the provinces.



The court hangs it's findings on this:



> Provincial inability is established in this case. First, the provinces, acting alone or together, are constitutionally incapable of establishing minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. While the provinces could choose to cooperatively establish a uniform carbon pricing scheme, doing so would not assure a sustained approach because the provinces and territories are constitutionally incapable of establishing a binding outcome-based minimum legal standard — a national GHG pricing floor — that applies in all provinces and territories at all times. Second, a failure to include one province in the scheme would jeopardize its success in the rest of Canada.



That's not evidence, its supposition (actually it approaches sophistry). The provinces cooperate on a wide variety of standards that are within their exclusive jurisdiction from securities law to personal property rights to health care and, while those laws aren't one hundred percent uniform, they provide a generally uniform standard across the country.

Brown in his decision hits the nail on the head. Everyone concedes the fact that the pith and substance of this law falls exclusively within the provincial powers under the Constitution. Once that is clear, and it is, the following is the concern.



> It is not possible for a matter formerly under provincial jurisdiction to be transformed, when minimum national standards are invoked, into a matter of national concern. To accept that allocating national targets or minimum national standards can serve as a basis for recognizing that some aspect of an area of provincial jurisdiction is distinctly national in scope, and therefore lies outside provincial jurisdiction, would be to accept a model of supervisory federalism by which the provinces can exercise their jurisdiction only as long as they do so in a manner that the federal legislation authorizes. This would open up any area of provincial jurisdiction to unconstitutional federal intrusion once Parliament decides to legislate uniform treatment.



I hate to use a "floodgates" argument, but the majority decision runs roughshod over explicit provincial constitutional powers on the basis of some declared need by the Feds to take control and impose a federal standard over greenhouse gas emissions. This is not a little thing that is merely about some carbon tax. It's a major blow against the provinces' constitutional powers and when the court will support the Feds in declaring that a particular issue is so dire that it is necessary to impose for the Feds to impose national standards in what is clearly a provincial matter. What's next health care, education, administration of justice? Hell, the Feds can't even administer aboriginal affairs properly.

Let's face the truth. The whole carbon tax thing has nothing to do with national standards but everything to do with a Liberal government signaling that it is doing something on the climate change front in order to rope in young voters. It's a lot easier to pass a federal law than to work with the provinces who have a much closer connection with their populations and who might have legitimate grounds for varying standards.

🍻


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> Just a point for anyone who uses "red" to highlight text they want to draw attention to, I find it almost impossible to read the red text against the green background. I tend to use yellow which stands out for me and is very readable. Sorry Altair, not picking on you but I've found a number of posts from various folks that I really have to strain to make out. Not sure if it's my old eyes or a general problem others have too.
> 
> Now to get to the issue. I wasn't saying whether it is the right strategy or not. All I'm saying is that with the scope of the problem world-wide, a federal strategy has little more effectiveness than individual provincial strategies. The question is does this justify over-riding a clear and established provincial jurisdiction over the matter.
> 
> ...


You may be right. Or wrong.

But so long as it's constitutional and in the national interest, it's moot.

I do find it interesting that former PM Harper appointed judges voted 3-2 for the carbon tax, PM Trudeau appoint judges voted 2-1 and a Martin appointed judge voted for.

Pretty bipartisan.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> I do find it interesting that former PM Harper appointed judges voted 3-2 for the carbon tax, PM Trudeau appoint judges voted 2-1 and a Martin appointed judge voted for.
> 
> Pretty bipartisan.


Balanced (3-2, as much as an odd number can be distributed) for Conservative-appointed judges.

Disproprtionately three-fold (3-1for Liberal-appointed judges.


So yes, the Conservative-appointed judges acted in a relatively bipartisan/balanced way.

Good observation.


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Balanced (3-2, as much as an odd number can be distributed) for Conservative-appointed judges.
> 
> Disproprtionately three-fold (3-1for Liberal-appointed judges.
> 
> ...


When compared to our southern neighbour's where every vote is more or less across party lines, having dissenting judges from both political parties appoint judges is a good sign for confederation.


----------



## FJAG (27 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> You may be right. Or wrong.
> 
> But so long as it's constitutional and in the national interest, it's moot.
> 
> ...



That part about the judges shows why we are so far ahead of the game. I can live with a court decision that is based on a difference of interpretation of the legal interests involved even if I disagree with the result. Our judges tend to make decisions on the basis of legal principles (and in fairness most federal US judges do as well regardless of who appointed them - its at the USSC level where the system breaks down big-time).

🍻


----------



## shawn5o (3 Apr 2021)

- I thought the chief justice was political in his judgement.

He did state the "climate change is real". There are a good number of scientists who disagree on climate change (I mean man-made climate change).

The science of climate change is not settled - the politics of climate change is settled.

- the second thing that bothers me is the "peace, order and good government" argument. I don't think we have "good government" at present.

I'm pretty sure the legal eagles here will correct me if I'm wrong

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2021)

I still don't understand carbon tax. 

I pay more out of my monthly pay check to prompt me to change my habits/carbon foot print or something. Come tax season I'm supposed to get that money back. 
Am I tax on that money I'm getting back? 

Big companies can just pay a fee to avoid the csron tax stuff and the money these big companies are paying to avoid changing their ha its goes into a slush fund for the government to promote "climate friendly" initiatives. 

[Going out on a limb, there's very little accountability and oversight for who that money goes to or what it's actually being used for] 

Do I have that right?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Apr 2021)

Not quite, Jarnhamar.

The carbon tax is a tax that is meant to change habits in consumers. It works by charging an actual amount on every tons of CO2 (or equivalent greenhouse gas) that will be produced by the consumer. But the "refund" of tax is not based on individual consumption but on average consumption.

So, using just one element as an example, let's look at car use and outlandish amounts for simplicity sake. 

Let's say that the average Canadian drives 500 Km a week with vehicles that consume, on average, 10 l/100Km and the carbon tax is currently at $1 per litre. This means that every Canadian spends, on average $50 a week in carbon tax, so the government collect on average $2,600 in tax per Canadian, and so, every year (tax neutral) every Canadian gets back *exactly* $2,600 dollars back from the Government.

But I, on the other hand, am not average: I am a little on the cowboy side and like to drive my big RAM 2500 that consumes 15 l/100Km for 1000 Km a week. I'll be paying the Government $150 every week in carbon tax for a total of $7,800 a year, but I will still get only $2600 back from the tax man. What I don't get back goes as recompense to two laid back urbanites in Vancouver who decided they didn't need a car and use an all electric transit system and walk the rest of the way.

The government is hoping that the extra $5,200  I pay will convince me to curb my ways and maybe, if I want to drive around a lot more than the average Canadian, I'll buy myself a Smart and cut my consumption to half the Canadian average. Of course, when I do act that way, I end up lowering the Canadian average consumption and the Government collects less taxes overall, but as a result reduces the tax payback at the end of the year accordingly , and so on so that with each iteration, a large segment of the population tries to take one more step to reduce their consumption and get more money back, and so on until no one consumes carbon editing gases anymore. To add to the effect, they also increase the carbon tax from time to time to re-kick-start the citizen's efforts.

You now integrate all aspects of consumption that can create greenhouse gases into the system - not just cars - such as for instance consuming plastics, and the overall effect is, hopefully, a concerted effort by people to avoid paying the tax by changing their habits.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Apr 2021)

Or maybe you live in a rural community, or on a farm where everything is so much further away, and you burn that much more fuel just to live. From that perspective, one could argue that this is nothing more than a tax on rural Canadians.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Not quite, Jarnhamar.
> 
> The carbon tax is a tax that is meant to change habits in consumers. It works by charging an actual amount on every tons of CO2 (or equivalent greenhouse gas) that will be produced by the consumer. But the "refund" of tax is not based on individual consumption but on average consumption.
> 
> ...


OGBD,

Your example is flawed.

BC has it’s own carbon tax, which goes directly into general provincial revenues.

There is no “rebate” from the Feds or anyone else at tax time. It is truly a tax on the rural and those who commute.


----------



## Remius (3 Apr 2021)

shawn5o said:


> - I thought the chief justice was political in his judgement.
> 
> He did state the "climate change is real". There are a good number of scientists who disagree on climate change (I mean man-made climate change).
> 
> ...


I disagree,  the science is settled but the politics is not.  What is a “good number”?  I think the climate change deniers cling to that “good number”.  Because climate change isn’t about science it’s about their politics and their feelings as someone put it,   I think the science of vaccines was settled too.  But a “number” of scientists disagree with that as well.  Does not mean they are right.

As to Good Government, I am pretty sure it isn’t about what government is in power or what they are doing, it refers to how our system of government is set up, jurisdictions of power and the legislative, executive and judicial level and the division on power between federal and provincial.  Essentially who gets to do what and how that is set up.  

So if you say we have a bad gouvernement because the liberals are in power and good one under Harper that isn’t a criticism of “Good Governement”.  Rather a criticism of the party in power.  Because how governement works and who can do what has not really changed.  So if a Westminster style constitutional monarchy is not good in your eyes I would disagree.  It is one of the better forms of good government in the world.









						The 25 Best Governments In The World
					

Governments in the world ranked according to the Legatum Institute




					www.worldatlas.com
				




This link is not to anything that I would say is the authority on anything but demonstrates what Good Government is.

I could be wrong as this is how I understand good government. Willing to be educated if I’m wrong


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Apr 2021)

If the science is settled, then it's no longer science, it's dogma. Science by its very nature thrives by being questioned. Again, the problem with climate science is that it's not the scientists that control the narrative.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> OGBD,
> 
> Your example is flawed.
> 
> ...



Which is just fine by the current NDP provincial government because there are no NDP MLAs from rural ridings


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> OGBD,
> 
> Your example is flawed.
> 
> ...



It isn't.

Jarnhamar asked about the Federal - tax neutral - carbon tax, not about the B.-C. NDP version of it.

The federal tax is allegedly the "tax-neutral" version, and that is what I described, in a simplified form. If people in B.-C. are willing have a more "progressive" (or "aggressive") form of the tax, it's up to them as long as it equals or exceeds the Federal guideline.


----------



## FJAG (3 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> I disagree,  the science is settled but the politics is not.  What is a “good number”?  I think the climate change deniers cling to that “good number”.  Because climate change isn’t about science it’s about their politics and their feelings as someone put it,   I think the science of vaccines was settled too.  But a “number” of scientists disagree with that as well.  Does not mean they are right.
> 
> As to Good Government, I am pretty sure it isn’t about what government is in power or what they are doing, it refers to how our system of government is set up, jurisdictions of power and the legislative, executive and judicial level and the division on power between federal and provincial.  Essentially who gets to do what and how that is set up.
> 
> ...



Interestingly the six countries listed above Canada all have populations of around 10 million or less. 

🤔


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> It isn't.
> 
> Jarnhamar asked about the Federal - tax neutral - carbon tax, not about the B.-C. NDP version of it.
> 
> The federal tax is allegedly the "tax-neutral" version, and that is what I described, in a simplified form. If people in B.-C. are willing have a more "progressive" (or "aggressive") form of the tax, it's up to them as long as it equals or exceeds the Federal guideline.


You specifically mentioned a couple “from Vancouver” getting a rebate. I was pointing out that no such thing was possible. Nobody living in BC gets a rebate.


----------



## Remius (4 Apr 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> If the science is settled, then it's no longer science, it's dogma. Science by its very nature thrives by being questioned. Again, the problem with climate science is that it's not the scientists that control the narrative.


So how water goes from solid to liquid to gas is dogma?   Or how clouds are formed?  Or how we know our hearts pump blood in our body or how mammals reproduce?  All dogma?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> You specifically mentioned a couple “from Vancouver” getting a rebate. I was pointing out that no such thing was possible. Nobody living in BC gets a rebate.


 True, but within the context of if it being the Federal tax-neutral version, without reference to the actual BC existing system.

You are however incorrect in stating that "nobody" in BC gets a rebate: While the BC government has elected not to go the tax-neutral way, it is returning a good deal of the money in the pockets of many residents: It's called the Climate Action Tax Credit, so that middle and low income citizen are not hit too hard by the carbon tax.






						British Columbia's Carbon Tax
					

This tax applies to the retail purchase or use of fuels in B.C.



					www2.gov.bc.ca
				




And, BTW, most economists agree that the current tax levels are not high enough to generate the kind of response needed for Canada to meet its reduction target. The tax would have to be increased many, many folds to get there, proving once again that Canada knows that what it does in this regard makes little difference on a planetary scale - and that we will get serious about it only when the primary contributors become serious themselves.


----------



## suffolkowner (4 Apr 2021)

The Central Dogma of Biology  DNA-RNA-Protein

and the choice to use dogma









						Central dogma of molecular biology - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




What's the term for a really substantiated theory?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> True, but within the context of if it being the Federal tax-neutral version, without reference to the actual BC existing system.
> 
> You are however incorrect in stating that "nobody" in BC gets a rebate: While the BC government has elected not to go the tax-neutral way, it is returning a good deal of the money in the pockets of many residents: It's called the Climate Action Tax Credit, so that middle and low income citizen are not hit too hard by the carbon tax.
> 
> ...


I stand corrected.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> So how water goes from solid to liquid to gas is dogma?   Or how clouds are formed?  Or how we know our hearts pump blood in our body or how mammals reproduce?  All dogma?


I think ModlrMike was referrring to the science of climate change in particular not science in general.


----------



## suffolkowner (4 Apr 2021)

What is the difference between climate science and non climate science?


----------



## shawn5o (4 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> I disagree,  the science is settled but the politics is not.  What is a “good number”?  I think the climate change deniers cling to that “good number”.  Because climate change isn’t about science it’s about their politics and their feelings as someone put it,   I think the science of vaccines was settled too.  But a “number” of scientists disagree with that as well.  Does not mean they are right.
> 
> As to Good Government, I am pretty sure it isn’t about what government is in power or what they are doing, it refers to how our system of government is set up, jurisdictions of power and the legislative, executive and judicial level and the division on power between federal and provincial.  Essentially who gets to do what and how that is set up.
> 
> ...



Thanks Remius

I didn't word or phrase the good government thing. I believe our parliament is good and it doesn't matter which party is in power there will be naysayers. It's just that for this current government (and under Harper) scandal after scandal appears in the press. Call me jaded.

As for climate, I'm sceptical (hockey stick graph, east coast cities under water, etc.) Finally, I still hold to the view that the science isn't settled but the politics is.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Apr 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> What is the difference between climate science and non climate science?



One of them attracts the hot chicks/ guys and research cash


----------



## Remius (4 Apr 2021)

shawn5o said:


> Thanks Remius
> 
> I didn't word or phrase the good government thing. I believe our parliament is good and it doesn't matter which party is in power there will be naysayers. It's just that for this current government (and under Harper) scandal after scandal appears in the press. Call me jaded.
> 
> As for climate, I'm sceptical (hockey stick graph, east coast cities under water, etc.) Finally, I still hold to the view that the science isn't settled but the politics is.


No need to thank me.  I don’t disagree about the state of the current group in power.  Being jaded would be and is justified.  Thanks for clarifying.  I’ll admit I assumed that’s what you meant but felt a definition of good government would be helpful.

I can understand why the science may not seem settled.  But I think it’s far from settled politically.  If it was the CPC would have accepted the inclusion of that in its last convention and policy frame work.  I doubt a lot of republicans south of us agree either.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Apr 2021)

Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth:

A little excerpt from Scotia Bank in their newest publication that attempts to give ESG ratings to Canadian Energy and Production companies, with a bit of elucidation on the gaming of countries attempting to get to (seemingly) lower emission levels....



*Oil and Gas remain vital to modern civilization*.

Global primary energy consumption increased 21% from 2009 to 2019 with fossil fuels remaining the dominant sources at ~84%. 

Wind and solar penetration dramatically increased over this period; however, these sources still generate less that 4% of global primary energy. 

While this may suggest a significant runway for growth, we believe it also points to the serious challenges posed by transitioning away from the high density and high efficiency energy provided by fossil fuels. 

Germany’s heralded ‘Energiewende’ transition has resulted in the highest consumer electricity costs in Europe (Germany's energy drive criticised over expense, risks) and concerns about supply shortfalls once the nation’s remaining nuclear reactors are shuttered. 

In the midst of its transition away from fossil fuels, Europe is generating more electricity from burning wood than from wind and solar combined under the guise of biomass being a source of renewable energy (Europe’s renewable energy policy is built on burning American trees) The ‘Green Energy’ That Might Be Ruining the Planet

In our view, this is a step backward, as biomass emits more CO2 than coal per unit of energy generated. However, the choice does not necessarily have to be one of lower efficiency and (seemingly) lower emission or higher efficiency and higher emissions energy sources. 

The innovations the Canadian oil and gas sector is undertaking to reduce GHG emissions across the value chain have the potential to keep Canadian energy in a prominent position even as several nations transition to lower emissions energy sources. 

While there are many challenges ahead for all in energy transition, we see it more as energy evolution and believe *the oil and gas industry is likely to play a vital role in actually figuring out how to make material components of global emissions abatement aspirations become a reality*.


----------



## Weinie (26 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> *And, BTW, most economists agree that the current tax levels are not high enough to generate the kind of response needed for Canada to meet its reduction target.* The tax would have to be increased many, many folds to get there, proving once again that Canada knows that what it does in this regard makes little difference on a planetary scale - and that we will get serious about it only when the primary contributors become serious themselves.


So your first sentence conflates a global problem with a second sentence that indicates it is, after all, a regional problem with global consequences. We have little sway in this field.

What if those reduction targets are wrong? The science is not settled, regardless of the braying amongst both the apostles and the apostates, IMO.


----------



## suffolkowner (26 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> One of them attracts the hot chicks/ guys and research cash



I never saw too many hot guys wandering around Woods Hole Massachusetts but I do take your point 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and others


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth:
> 
> A little excerpt from Scotia Bank in their newest publication that attempts to give ESG ratings to Canadian Energy and Production companies, with a bit of elucidation on the gaming of countries attempting to get to (seemingly) lower emission levels....
> 
> ...


I have been to Germany in recent years. Their Energiewende project, coupled with counter-intuitive decision to shutter perfectly good Nuclear Power plants has led to perverse outcomes of high usage of lignite coal to keep the lights on and the highest electricity rates in all of Europe. 

To say the local ratepayers there are unhappy would be an understatement.


----------

