Supreme Court rules Ottawa's carbon tax is constitutional

[jazz]

What is it called when the right has to resort to insults and when do you slink away given these insults you shared in this thread?

if the SCC wants to come here and debate their decision, I will certainly refrain from insults, but hiding away from scrutiny to render a non legal politically charged decision, they deserve every bit of my scorn.

Anyway, they can now have front row seats to the constitutional crisis they just kicked off.

[dmlfarmer]

The difference is dml, I am not politically tainted like our judiciary has been.

I see you have no rebuttal to my argument. Is equal application of the law not a founding principle or our constitution?

We now have 3 programs in violation of that principle. Carbon Pricing, Equalization and CPP. All gamed against one part of the country for the benefit of another by tinkering with wording and formulas.

Carbon pricing applies to every province. Every province had the right to develop their own pricing plan as long as it met the minimum set by the federal government. So there is equal application across the country for carbon pricing.

Equalization is funded from general revenues which come from exactly the same rate of federal taxation in every province. Again, equal application of taxation.

[jazz]

Carbon pricing applies to every province. Every province had the right to develop their own pricing plan as long as it met the minimum set by the federal government. So there is equal application across the country for carbon pricing.

Equalization is funded from general revenues which come from exactly the same rate of federal taxation in every province. Again, equal application of taxation.

Why ignore facts dml, is it some sort of badge of honor for you.

Equalization is not applied equally because the formula has left out hydro revenues. So Sask Power revenues go into the general revenue but hydro Quebec does not.

Same with carbon pricing, Quebec gets to leave its heavy emitters out like cement production and then engage in a foreign carbon trading scam with California and then use Equalization to build more hydro which is exempt from both programs.

What part of unequal do you not get?

[Jordy2323]

None of these votes have been unanimous.

If everything is on the up and up, why not?

Is it because most things in law are now, how someone "inturrepts" it?

[dmlfarmer]

Why ignore facts dml, is it some sort of badge of honor for you.

Equalization is not applied equally because the formula has left out hydro revenues. So Sask Power revenues go into the general revenue but hydro Quebec does not.

Same with carbon pricing, Quebec gets to leave its heavy emitters out like cement production and then engage in a foreign carbon trading scam with California and then use Equalization to build more hydro which is exempt from both programs.

What part of unequal do you not get?

Are the formula's flawed, I agree 100%. But that does not make the actual legislation unconstitutional. Formulas can be changed as Harper did with equalization formula.

But this is besides the point. The SCC found carbon pricing to be constitutional because it is not a tax. The purpose of carbon pricing is not taxation for the purpose of raising revenues but to reduce consumption of fossil fuels thereby reducing emissions and for the action to work it has to be applied nationally. This conclusion is based on Pith and Substance, which is the basis on which constitutionality is determined. I suggest you go back to your google law degree and reread the section on Pith and Substance .

[furrowtickler]

What’s Quebec’s Corbin tax again ? $17/tn ?

When is $17 and $170 equal ?
Must be new math .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The purpose of carbon pricing is not taxation for the purpose of raising revenues but to reduce consumption of fossil fuels thereby reducing emissions and for the action to work it has to be applied nationally.

I would take that one step further. If you accept the arguement that we need to reduce emissions, then any policy has to be applied GLOBALLY, not nationally. Punishing energy intensive industries in one country, while other countries are completely exempt only forces more industries to move offshore to where they can afford to compete in the global market place.

[furrowtickler]

[jazz]

I suggest you go back to your google law degree and reread the section on Pith and Substance .

The primacy of our law is based on the constitution, nothing else, not some convoluted clauses that were obviously over relied on.

That premise is simple, 10 provinces and 2 territories agree to form a confederation with the understanding that matters of provincial jurisdiction are not impeded or infringed. That premise is as important as anything in our charter including individual rights. A govt could not get away with treating 2 individuals different under the law, nor should it get away with treating 2 provinces different.

Its classic state sanctioned discrimination no matter what formula you apply to it. One part of the country treated favorably vs one punished over a flimsy argument that cannot even be proven.

Sorry dml, your spin isnt going to work on this one. Its clear as day and night. Obviously there is a faction in our govt who no longer respect that document and are vying for a different style of govt, one with a lot more central planning and enforcement.

I would take that one step further. If you accept the argument that we need to reduce emissions, then any policy has to be applied GLOBALLY, not nationally. Punishing energy intensive industries in one country, while other countries are completely exempt only forces more industries to move offshore to where they can afford to compete in the global market place.

lets examine that AF, what is the other punitive tax that exists to discourage use? How about taxes on smokes and alcohol. is that applied unevenly across the country? Nope, not a chance, the tax rate is the same for smokes in Que as it is in Ab. And Quebec is not allowed to design some cigarette harm offset program to counter it. They pay the same rate as the rest of us, period.

[flea beetle]

Its tax season bud. Check your tax return when you file it. Alberta and Saskatchewan residents get the highest carbon tax credits of any province. On average these residents get more back than they pay.

https://www.hrblock.ca/blog/what-is-the-climate-action-incentive-heres-how-it-affects-your-taxes/ https://www.hrblock.ca/blog/what-is-the-climate-action-incentive-heres-how-it-affects-your-taxes/

"After I pay the fuel charge and get the Climate Action Incentive rebate, how much money am I left with?

The government estimates that most families will continue to get more money back than they pay. According to the Department of Finance Canada, here’s what the average household might be left with after paying the fuel charge and getting the CAI rebate:
Ontario $153
Manitoba $243
Saskatchewan $249

Alberta $355

UMMM...just the extra cost of groceries because of the carbon tax hits everybody harder in the pocket than those numbers. Nevermind the extra cost of gas/diesel/natural gas/propane.