Ontario submits final arguments against federal carbon tax

Ontario submits final arguments against federal carbon tax
Ontario submits final arguments against federal carbon tax
That is too much of a burden to put Ontario taxpayers. How is it a burden? 90 % of that money immediately gets returned to the very same people who just paid it. That’S the point. It doesn’t go back to the same people combat climate change or not. In the meantime, the Ontario government has launched an antique carbon-tax ad campaign to warm Ontario’s of its cost, with the federal government’s carbon tax. You’Ll pay more for heating your home, for driving your kids to school and for growth. Ontario also plans to display these antique carbon tax stickers at every gas station in the province. The feds are calling the advertising misleading because they don’t inform Canadians of the annual tax rebate, they’ll be getting so. How does Ontario feel better? How much money is this tablets costing taxpayers Ron Phillips? Is the Ontario minister of environment conservation and Percy joins us now from Toronto Hunter Phillips nice to see you again thanks for your time today, challenge because we had, we saw it to proceed over the weekend. There were challenges on both sides of the justices, but one Justice in particular Justice, James McPherson, challenge of the provinces, were specifically inside air pollution. The word quote: Ontario sort of with the air, its National and international that the federal government is is clearly exhibiting. With this pill, am I reminded viewers that mean we’re, not the only ones there are you now with the Alberta election Victory 3 provinces, also at court until Seaside and on the political side have been that we haven’t made in Ontario plan that is taking the great Work that’s been done in Ontario already had no I’ve had the chance to say on your show, before we’re 75 % of the way to the prime minister’s reduction Target, which is better than any other, and we have a way to get that last that last 25 % done without a carbon tax, so you know we’re, will let the lawyers make their arguments? We certainly understand that climate change has an issue, but but our argument, the cords is that it’s not constitutional, for the federal government. Intervene in this way. Argument to the public is that it’s an unnecessary tax that hurts families and we are doing our part and have done our part and will and I’m pretty sure that’s what they heard from Manitoba Saskatchewan and they’re, going to hear from Jason Kenney in the Target that You’Re talking about it’s, it’s not the funniest Targets. In fact, your Province changed the climate targets. You you, they were more ambitious, under-eye Kathleen Wynne, and that is how, under the under that sort of calculation, is how the government established its own Target. So it’s not you’re meeting the targets that you said, if not the prime minister’s targets, and that is essentially why they say that they need to impose this additional than everyone else. But the reality about the ministry of environment and the Prime Minister agreed to a 30 % reduction from 2005 levels. That was the target we chose you’re, not wrong that it’s lower than Kathleen wynne’s Target. Kathleen wynne’s government was coming nowhere close to hitting that Target Ontario family couldn’t afford and businesses couldn’t afford. So we have made a decision. We made a decision to align herself with the targets that the Prime Minister established targets that we’re agreed to in Paris in 2015 and we’re well on the way to making them. And Minister I mean it’s quite interesting this week. As you probably know, the national index that measures these things, it’s it’s nonpartisan group measured again the progress of each province interesting ly, while Ontario continues to be a little bit over 22 %. Introduction for the rest of Canada had increased emissions by 3 %. That number is not going to 6 and if you look at the real details, that number was very interesting as some of the provinces that have cap and trade programs like go back or have carbon tax is likely see actually seen. Emissions go up so listen. Ontario play share. The Prime Minister can try to convince us that we should do everybody else’s, but we got to protect our economy and our jobs as well. What is the plan, but it’s different? It’S still. We don’t know if there’s no guarantee that that will actually that it will achieve as much because there’s still some of it to be determined to reach even the targets that you said it. We’Ve already has restart Mission standards program, we’ve already put forward our plans rounded up and all we’ve talked extensively about Ontario carbon trust, which is a way to invest. We have looked at exactly ways that natural gas and renewable natural gas will be Pacific plan. And frankly, I would ask the federal government show us. The plan show us the approach that they want to take to get to the Target that they agreed to. We have nothing to apologize for an Ontario for that plan, we’re working on it as we go ahead and it doesn’t involve a carbon tax, a carbon tax that isn’t necessary in frankly, if you look at the last set of Statistics, isn’t working all that well in Bc or in Quebec the sticker campaign? How much is a public awareness campaign about the carbon tax.? How much is that campaign costing taxpayers set up postcards to be running good glass and I’m sure you’ve asked the federal Minister the same question about the cost. We were always transparent in our campaign. How I look forward to when we were running. We were very clear: running, get rid of cap and trade and to get rid of the to fight a carbon tax. What something that we said we were going to use all the tools at our disposal. We talk then about as much as Thirty million dollars. Now we want to make sure that ontarians know we’re going to defend. Ontario’S rights in the courts were using our own lawyers, not outside lawyer, so that those costs won’t be so high and yes, we’re not at all concerned. When you talk about the cost just just yesterday, I was out talking about the cost just for our OPP for fuel $ 2000000. Additionally, a year just for fuel in Opp cars, Hospital, 29 million dollars of additional cost every year, so yes Avengers versus. I wish the federal government had pushed us into this fight, but we’re in it and – and we think I think this was a pretty important week in terms of what happened in Alberta. I think, in terms of the Court discussions, I think people were bit surprised frankly with the strength of our arguments, but they should have been, but I think that they were and, of course, as I said, with the with the most recent science that shows that, while Ontario continues to do well, the rest of Canada. Doesn’T it kind of makes you wonder as one of their new judges says? Why don’t you just leave them alone? If they’re doing such a good job closest of the taxpayers would be at the center of everything your government did. So I take a point that it’s 10 10,000. I think it said $ 4,000. I’M sorry for the stickers. How much are the? How much are the ads costing? Why can’t you say it’s just with the stickers, but remember: we’ve made a 1.2 billion dollar tax cut by getting rid of that cap-and-trade program. So we all this is about millions and millions of dollars and we’ve absolutely are we safe Oregon Revenue when you safe Oregon Revenue, we say money in taxpayers: pockets. That’S part of our objective. We want to make sure that that money goes back into their pockets. Cuz. You know that she they need it. Life is very unaffordable in many parts of our problems, for a variety of reasons, including the cost put on people. So this is very aligned with the program that we ran on and we will keep making this point and it only if you’ll be kind enough to give me this platform Devore to talk about if it’s $ 648 per family by 2022. What of money and two more and then we’re going to give you more money back. You know my problem with that. The whole point of a carbon tax is supposed to be there going to change Behavior by attacking something and that that cost is going to cause people to change. Behavior. So tell me if those you’re saying our true how they’re going to tax people certain amount of money to give them more money back and then expected Behavior change, it just doesn’t match, and so we aren’t saying that carbon taxes in something that some jurisdictions can use. I’M not about to tell other provinces how they want to fight climate change, but we have said how will fight climate change as the minister of environment would sit down and go through our play. She might find her some things there that she likes and she would find a willing partner in Ontario to try to make a difference, but instead you know we are running their radio ads. You know they’re, making their point they’re sending postcards to everybody and we’re going to keep making our point. We think we’re right on this. What they’re doing is unconstitutional, but it’s all so unnecessary and it’s bad for families, but over a 14-year. Ontario emissions are down 22 %. We don’t care how they achieve it. They’Ve achieved Productions of 22 %. Why don’t you just leave them alone? It’S not just Ontario! That, as a country, we need to be worried about Armand’s lawyers, defending the federal carbon tax in court. This week, after four days of hearings, Ontario’s constitutional challenge, appeal court justices will decide whether or not Shaun Frazier is parliamentary secretary to the minister of environment and climate change and he joins us now from Halifax. I, Mr Fraser, to see you again. It’S emissions over a 14-year. In large part because the previous government’s shuttering of cool fired, but he wondered aloud, is climate change is real. We have to take Serious action if we’re going to avoid the most severe consequences of relying on the record of a previous government to adjust. Fight in action today is completely unacceptable and counterintuitive to most Canadians believe, which is, we need to be doing more, not less. When it comes to action on climate change, they are continuing with that part of the plan. Obviously, on the carbon tax going to apply a carbon tax to have the emitters, is that really, you know totally advocating the responsibility? The fact is, the plan that we under Doug Ford has been one of of doing less than the previous government was doing at this point in our history. We need to be more ambitious and we need to be taking serious action. The center of this case, of course I revolves around our authority to implement a price pollution. We really just told provinces. We want to set a minimum standard that we hope you can achieve. We know that the most effective thing we can do to transition to a low-carbon economy is to put a price on pollution. To ask provinces to do the bare minimum is not largest Ranch, in my mind, is disproportionately on that they’ve reduced the targets from where Kathleen Winn set them. They put them to basically are the pair of targets that is and they’re saying we’re just expecting us to do more, while other provinces can do less, and that is inherently unfair. What do you make of that in the past? I know in my home Province across a different parties were in government in Nova. Scotia has been serious progress, but that doesn’t justify doing in the future I’d. The fact is, the Paris agreement doesn’t have sub-national targets for provincial jurisdictions. It has National targets at we’ve committed to we’re going to need to have everybody get behind a a plan to reduce emissions if we’re going to hit those targets and avoid the most consequences that we know we’re. Coming from the the very well-respected report to the internet intergovernmental panel on climate change, this is serious and we have to take action and we have to take action now, stickers that talk about the federal carbon tax. Aren’T you also sending out postcards that extolled the virtues of your carbon pricing scheme information? They have to understand the policies that were putting forward. The fact is, most families who are jurisdiction, where this plan of flies are going to be better off at the end of the year, not to slap a $ 10,000 fine on a the owner of a gas station who doesn’t put forward propaganda from a provincial government Is not only inappropriate in and asking them to put for misleading cremation, it’s a huge stretch from a party that purports to protect free speech to mandate, speech of of the private sector at the same time that they’re going through a great exercise and spending money to Put this propaganda out there, they set aside 30 million. at a time where they’re making Cuts firing teachers at roeding, the Quality Healthcare in their Province, and they have $ 30 to spend to fight for the right to do less on climate change, its it’s unbelievable. To me, cuz they’re misleading what what they’re trying to do is tell Canadians that be the cost of living is going up when, in fact, they know that to the climate action incentive is going to leave most families better off at the end of their 3. Certainly, I’ve I’ve never tried to suggest that every single person is going to be better off. Of course it depends on the the consumption. Sorry, I’m not sure about to the specific detail on the postcard, but we’re not mandating that they go out 5 from privately owned gas stations to the to the extent that we want to make sure that people living in provinces like Ontario and New Brunswick, the jurisdiction For the plaintiff Lies, We want to make sure that people know that there’s a component to this plan where money is returned that we’re not going to go up there and mandate that everyone showed from the rooftops. This is what the government’s doing particularly won. The Ontario government is doing it in a misleading way. Is there a cost to taxpayers associated with The Mailing and the reduction of those postcards? There’S a there’s a cost, while things I don’t have the the date in front of me. Of course, I anything like that. I expect would be would be quite modest, but the fact is Will and if you look at the advertising of government programs on over the past few years since last election, it’s a small fraction of what governments have historically been spending in recent years in Canada. The idea is that we want to make sure people understand the policies that are going to have more money coming into their pockets at the end of the year and I’ll make make no apologies to to ensure that Canadians understand how they can take advantage of programs. That’S going to reduce their tax burden to put money more money in their pockets. He who has promised to get out basically get rid of the province’s carbon tax scheme or carbon pricing scheme, or will your government-imposed the federal carbon price on that problem when it becomes clear that they’re not willing to do the the minimum standard that the law requires? I spent a few years in Alberta, the story WhatsApp. That’S a plan that fails to meet the criteria of the federal legislation. The federal backstop is going to apply in that Province. I should take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Kenny on his election win in to thank Ms not lie for her record of service over the past few years. I know we all have different opinions, but we’re all in here to serve the public interest. I’Ve been, in my mind, serving the public interest, includes fighting climate change and, to the extent that a conservative government of Alberta under Mr Kenny refuses to do the bare minimum that we know we should be doing. We will Implement a federal, so he says the third week of May 1st that piece of legislation Hill introduces the one that repeals the provincial carbon tax. Does that mean right after that you can impose? The federal government will impose the federal carbon tax going to die to declare that it’s a in effect, but I can tell you in every Province, not just Alberta that fails to meet the minimum standards set up by this legislation. Add the federal government will step in and the fact is, climate change is real. It’S a national concern and pollution, nowhere, provincial borders start and end at we have to take action, and I’m convinced that the federal legislation is a meaningful step in that direction.
Ontario’s constitutional challenge to Ottawa’s imposition of a carbon tax was left in the hands of five Appeal Court justices on Thursday after the hearing wrapped up with each side pressing the court to find in its favour.
To read more: http://cbc.ca/1.5103215

»»» Subscribe to CBC News to watch more videos: http://bit.ly/1RreYWS

Connect with CBC News Online:

For breaking news, video, audio and in-depth coverage: http://bit.ly/1Z0m6iX
Find CBC News on Facebook: http://bit.ly/1WjG36m
Follow CBC News on Twitter: http://bit.ly/1sA5P9H
For breaking news on Twitter: http://bit.ly/1WjDyks
Follow CBC News on Instagram: http://bit.ly/1Z0iE7O

Download the CBC News app for iOS: http://apple.co/25mpsUz
Download the CBC News app for Android: http://bit.ly/1XxuozZ

»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
For more than 75 years, CBC News has been the source Canadians turn to, to keep them informed about their communities, their country and their world. Through regional and national programming on multiple platforms, including CBC Television, CBC News Network, CBC Radio, CBCNews.ca, mobile and on-demand, CBC News and its internationally recognized team of award-winning journalists deliver the breaking stories, the issues, the analyses and the personalities that matter to Canadians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *