Sask. court rules federal carbon tax is constitutional | Power & Politics

Sask. court rules federal carbon tax is constitutional | Power & Politics
Sask. court rules federal carbon tax is constitutional | Power & Politics
Court has ruled in favor of the federal carbon tax argue that it was unfair for Ottawa to impose a tax on some provinces and not others. Just because the feds didn’t like their climate plans. They said the federal plan violated provincial jurisdiction as well. The greenhouse gas pollution unconstitutional, either in whole or in Part II, says it will appeal. The decision to the Supreme Court mean well. The federal Empire Minister had this to say: conservative politicians, I’m from Scott mode to Doug Ford, to Jason Kenney to Andrew Scheer., Fighting pricing pollution, one of the great tools that we have and start fighting climate change with us will have more options. Thank you. For your time to the Supreme Court done by our constitutional law Branch within the ministry of Justice us so the incremental cost to Saskatchewan residence after this case is zero. I will continue to be zero, plus, maybe a couple of flights to the Supreme Court to when we get to that point. But the fact of the matter is is if I, if we do not move forward and are successful in holding office in effective tax, that will cost us, so many families are so very much in this province. The cost of families would be would be so very. Very large, how did the incremental cost is zero at this point in and – and we filled most of the most of the majority of the people in the province of support – that’s going further with this, so we will in the world, has a carbon tax been introduced In and being the reason for emissions reductions, we have seen areas of the world where there have been reductions in emissions where they may or may not have a carbon tax, but largely those reductions are often due to another policy initiative like the phase-out of coal. For example, coal-fired power, I change in regulations around industry practice. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the world where carbon tax alone has in any way been been ineffective. How to reduce emissions. Rr nervousness around a tear in Saskatchewan and, dare I say, other provinces is his. It is an effective tool in actually I’m moving. Some of those good-paying careers that we have in our communities to other areas are there of the world in our our steel manufacturing industry. For example, in our energy industry, we have seen investment flea this nation due to a number of policies been up to and including all this carbon tax, Sweden, which I believe has the world one of the world’s highest carbon taxes today, and that was implemented in 1991. By mm, emissions were as much as 25 % lower than they would have been without the carbon tax. In Denmark, the per capita emission of carbon was reduced by 25 % between 1990 and 2005. Both those jurisdictions have carbon taxes. Again. How do you know that word rules around some of the industries that are operating in each of those countries and how are those have impacted? The emissions, reductions and weather was due to those those regulations that have been passed. Rules, if you will, or has it been attributed actually at 2. The second piece I would put forward, as is to whether those countries are actually consumption-based company countries or like western Canada and the nation of Canada, export-based countries where we build produce mine things and we ship two other people all around the world. A carbon tax will ultimate ultimately make our economies less competitive and, ultimately, those jobs will move to other areas of the world. Still how we generate wealth around this world is very different, any less competitive, a very a very different economy, from. In Saskatchewan. When you look at agriculture in Saskatchewan, crop agriculture, very different than British Columbia – and I would say much more of a carbon sink – has an agriculture in British Columbia that British Columbia, natural gas not. They have yet Energy Products over that we have that we mind potash. I hear in Saskatchewan is well through a solution, mines and unconventional Minds that that doing it. How about there? Among the very the cleanest mines in the world? And we must remember. error mining in producing some of the cleanest products in the world in western Canada? And we should ensure that that is recognized not come from. Those Industries actually comes from families exactly which makes it so. We have always said that wealth wealth redistribution program, not at not an environmental initiative in any way, shape or form, which speaks to the fact that we should actually have a conversation around. How can we do better by the environment rather than taxing hard-working families and redistributing them money as a government, which, I don’t think anybody really agrees with with that type of a program? Listen to certain degree, but it? But it is the problem if your budget officer again looked at it and confirm what the federal government was saying that over the next five years, all but the wealthiest 20 % of Kayden household will get back more in the rebate than actually pay in the carbon Tax, no, not at all small businesses, will receive there’s a number of those intermediate businesses that will be paying and will receive a virtually nothing back further. The Parliamentary budget officer went on to say that Altima the initiatives that it that it won’t have any substantial reduction in in carbon die in carbon emissions, because a number of the initiatives are already underway that he had reference portion of it and the rebate portion of It he indicated there was three three initiatives that would reduce actual emissions, the in a more fuel-efficient vehicles, that’s happening already in our transport trucks. In the vehicles we drive, it would in in the quote, phasing out the cool fire electrical generation – that’s happening already Across the Nation, and we have Targets in Saskatchewan with respect to that. The third item is, that is a result of a carbon tax and that would be less supply of Energy Products directly targeted at Saskatchewan Alberta, Canadian industry, not less demand less Supply, so we would be choosing to reduce the the income, the the economic Economic Opportunity that We have in those Industries arbitrarily – and I I say those are some more sustainable and heavy heavy oil production industries in the world, and we should look at getting that product to Market and displacing some of the dirty or product that is now being used by Canadians And others around the world people using, which is why I’ve also indicated that I I believe this report is at the sentiment to a large degree of premature actually, and it’s estimates around the indirect cost. The loss of jobs are really that will come from from this policy of this. This wealth redistribution program, pure jobs, actually didn’t it. It didn’t speak to a lot less than and spoke to less Supply. The national energy board actually speaks to demand going up about 50 % between now and 2040.. So there’s really dueling reports out with respect to what what do? What are energy industry will look like into the future? You have the national energy board saying a 50 % increase of the Parliamentary budget officer, saying there be a 15 % or 15 % reduction in Supply that ultimately mean that we are making a choice and not to participate in an industry that we are among. The most sustainable in the world and to me that is not a what Canada is about. That is not going to help. I in any way, the economic well so that our families are generating in this province and certainly when you take a sustainable energy production, when you compare two production around the world off the market, you’re not doing right by by global global greenhouse gas emissions either. So this is not a win for Canada, Saskatchewan filling out a win for the for the global challenge of climate change. Skytrim today, with two judges formulate forming a detailed dissenting opinion that says this: this is federally impose carbon tax is not constitutional, so we’ll be taking it to the Supreme Court. But ultimately, I think you’ll see Canadians the polls this fall with. This is the ballot question and we seen that happened over the course of the past year or number of times and provincial elections. I I don’t see why that would be any different at the federal level. This fall. Will you accept that verdict? If that is the outcome of the election, that means that nobody wants a carbon tax, but if it’s in favor of the Liberals you’re not willing to accept that they are in favor of one, we are effective tool to reduce emissions in address. What is a global challenge? I appreciate your time reacting to the decision and the threat of more legal battles to come. Sean Frazier is the Parliamentary secretary to the minister of environment. Every every other day highlight something specific that that was brought up in the in the court decision. So it’s a it’s a win. It’S it’s talks about it being constitutional, but it also talks about the sort of central. The utility of of the carbon tax in fighting emissions actually addresses that issue Beyond just the constitutionality of it. At the same time, the Prime Minister saying that the federal government has to do more to fight climate change. Will you announce? Will the federal government announce if that price on carbon is going to go up we’ll just too aggressive decision before I tied directly to restate the question this court decision affirms what we already knew. The federal government has the authority to regulate in the international interest greenhouse gas emissions and implemented minimum standard that shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone and the political fight that we’ve seen play. I simply that has never been based on on fax. It seems with respect to the plan to put a price on pollution in the only plan that someplace right now is to have it Accelerate from $ 10 to $ 50 by 2020 to how’s it going to be you in 2022 to see if the policies working Effectively, there’s not a plan to change it, be on that a but we’ll assess the the facts on the ground based on science, facts and evidence. At that time, carbon emissions certainly will. The starting point for me is that we’ve got a goal outlined in the Paris agreement that will working towards right. Now we watched adoption of zero-emission vehicles that are seeing up Texans teams in his put in place and policies that are not yet really taking hold as built into the remodeled into the dressing. We we do have a plan to to get to the Paris agreement Target and we’re going to be implementing a number different measures to get their play. Some pollution is going to be part of it. I have but one you want the u.s. weather we’re going to assess it in 2022, we’re going to be looking at the effectiveness and terms of the return-on-investment, so to speak. Is it? How is it having a positive impact in reducing our mission? Is it is it getting at where we need to be to ensure that we’re avoiding the worst consequences of climate change? Your Governor yourself says they. This should be a Ballot Box question right, the idea of what is necessary to fight climate change signal to voters years next few years. Right now and we went, we can’t signal 10 years into the future. I, what we haven’t actually model dope, because we haven’t conducted that budget officers report that was just made public a couple of within the last couple of weeks. I he confirms what we’ve been saying all along that the majority of households can expect to be actually better off in the court recognized this to I want. It said the government actually not keeping any of the revenue and it touring all of it back whether it’s collected from residents or big emitters, returning all of the revenue back to Residence inside the provinces, with 10 % going small businesses in the motorcycle. This is the way we’re going to fight climate change. This is why our plan is superior. Isn’T it fair to provide Canadians with some more full some picture of what to expect to attend, attend those targets Beyond 2022, when you’re running on it in the federal election? That being the plan? Now, that’s the plan is baked into legislation. If another government wants to change that in the future, they’ll actually have to have a legislative debate, and I was to change that. So we’re not we’re not moving from the plan to put a price on pollution because we believe it’s effective. If we want to look at the whole other measures, my opinion is, we should be doing as much as we can as fast as we can. It’S not just the price on pollution. I think one of the victims in this whole debate has been the fact that we know that it takes more than just a price on pollution to get where we need to be that’s why the clean Canada report that we fish do dat outlines over fifty different Measures that are actually working towards getting there and we know we need to do more and we’re going to continue to push the envelope to get there. If you’re saying your government has guaranteed – and we have information on the show many times that the Targets in 23 will be attained, that is not with a flat carbon tax after 20 22. So if you’re willing to say we’re doing all this other stuff. Until then, why won’t you be able to tell Canadiens how high that carbon tax will have to go in order to achieve the targets that your government says, we will achieve 50 different measures. Each of those policies has to be monitored to fully understand the impact that they’re going to have in terms of emissions reduction until we actually have a number of these policies being implemented. Measured, and we understand the impact that they’re going to have it’s hard to understand. How much we need to adjust one of those 50 different policies. So what we know right now is that we’re looking forward to 2022 to accelerate it to $ 2, a ton at that point in time all the while returning the revenues to households to make sure that by and large sore left better off than they are. As a result of the plant being put in place, that’s that’s actually pick that is built into the legislation. So, in fact, I surprised accelerates from from 22 to $ 50 per ton, the rebates for the climate action send of actually grows over time as well legislation. I’Ve got no plans, the government’s got, no plans are hiding to to start taking revenues in and in fact, the court was actually pretty quick to point out the difference between a regulatory charge and attacks. In that, on this exact, I describing the fact that this isn’t about raising revenue. The law as its model them as it’s been adopted by Parliament, is designed to make sure that their revenues returned have something it was a close decision. Three to the dissenting opinion. Viewed it as a tax and that that was kind of central to their understanding of why it was okay or why it wasn’t jurisdiction to deal with a national concern. In a course, pollution Knows No Boundaries and two to argue that the greenhouse gas emissions are not a national concern. In my mind, is Ludacris. The ultimate decision. Time on this will come in the federal election. Are you worried that a decision like this allows andershire to say the only way to get rid of the carbon tax is to get rid of Justin Trudeau to make that link so very direct? It was in my control high-end when I’m sitting in the House of Commons – I I’m not always use factoring, and how is this going to play? What are the conservatives going to say about our plan? What we’re trying to do when I find people at home I’ll respond to sincere efforts to pass code policy and if you actually look at the court, one of the things that I found are. They went so far as to suggest that I putting a price on emissions is not just part and parcel of the climate plan but in fact, in a sensual, essential aspect of the global effort to reduce emissions. So, if we’re Folk, adopting good policy, that’s going to improve our environment and put more money in the pasta, Canadian families. I trust the Canadians will make a decision to send their best to their their own self-interest, Sears in conservative politics, wrapped up in all this and I’ll be the first person to say how frustrated I am when I see conservative premiers across Canada putting money towards Maine Climate action rather than climate change, the fact is, we do operate in a political environment, but that doesn’t mean that your primary motivation has to be to win the political fight, and I find that you usually go hand in it. I take yours but they’re they’re, saying that this is a tax that will unfairly hurt people in provinces in which they govern. I couldn’t disagree more, it’s it’s an essential component of a plan to reduce emissions, and I think it’s important. We consider can Canadians on the merits of the plan, because it’s actually one that’s going to make life more affordable for them. At the same time, we do the right thing by our environment on an issue of existential importance: environment Federal carbon tax in Court. Ontario made his case during four days appearing 2nd April, 8th expected to be several months ago before the judges rule in December. New Brunswick said it was launching its own legal challenge: Manitoba file documents in federal courts, the end of April, seeking a judicial review to kill the attack and new Alberta Premier Jason Kenny has also vowed to challenge the federal plan in court. So what does today’s ruling tell us about the fate of those other court challenges and what could happen when the decision is appealed? Joining me now is Errol Mendez law, professor at the University of Ottawa U2 decision in layman’s terms, what exactly how they differed in their approach to the issue. Example, much of the first part of the ruling focuses on how we signed the Paris Accord and they was the Federal provincial negotiations, the so-called up Vancouver declaration, which then led to a framework to talk about how to establish the minimal benchmarks to to achieve the $ 10, a tonne excetera which things that go into. So what does that mean? In terms of where the federal government is saying there is a federal power of national concern within? What’S called a peace order and good government clause, and then they focus much more naturally than what the government federal government argument, but very focused on Iran approach. That BC was arguing, which is, let’s take that Benchmark and let’s see how they was an approach to this issue which, according to the jurisprudence which is necessary, it was a single, indivisible and distinct subject matter and they’ll a focus on this Benchmark, they called it in Very well, it’s standard and price stringency. 4 THHN admission translate that into into Ravens is that after they did the framework from from Paris to the Vancouver decoration, say: okay, what is it mean if a meeting for 10 Dent Benchmark that East Providence could have to meet at a minimal feel like a standard Target for for that, and so they focus on that standard, they called it the the national standards for price stringency 44 formations on the taxation aspect of it. First of all, they said: okay, this could be either Levi based on regulation. We can be straight forward text. They came to the conclusion that this was a tax and because it was basically something which was being imposed by governing Council and not by Parliament. There decided that he wasn’t illegal delegation of Taxation in the coast that that old phrase, which is no taxation without representation, so on that basis they said it was, but then they went on to say to deal with this larger issue of whether or not this issue Become of such National concern that they should be a federal power to regulate that Benchmark so to speak, and they came to the conclusion know because it is not single and indivisible in a distinct, because if you wouldn’t make it wake to use some of the actual Wording it would rip the heart out of division of powers and would, in effect, make the federal government the regulator of regulators. In other words, they would then fry an egg. Can I put it in life with you, by which I’m hoping I can do, is basically saying essentially what the federal government is doing if they claim that this is a national concern, you’ll feel basically going to stay that way. To regulate how you regulate everything in The problems if it becomes an issue of national concern, in other words y’all by indirectly, taking away some of our most important powers on the other challenges that are that are pursuing right now, because the ruling the majority ruling seems to have actually taken the BCS government’s Argument based on this Benchmark approach to make the the national considered a narrow issue and again bcrd the same thing in the Ontario Court of Appeal. And if I’m listening to the questions at the end of the the reaction of the judges, they seem to have more agreement with that. Then, with some of the other arguments that the federal government was making in Factory DC, made much better argument in the Ontario Court of Appeal than the federal government, and so my prediction is that going to be a similar result in the Ontario Court of Appeal? They will be a descent just noticing some of the questions that were coming from some of the judges. They will definitely defend, But ultimately, these issues are so important, they’re going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada just an issue if any appeal is made for the Supreme Court of Canada, it’ll probably be after the election. But what, if there’s a different government in power there? Who decides they don’t want to do the carbon Tech, wildeck sprinkler? Canada still go ahead with the hearing? It’S what’s called a moose the issue. So there’s some really fascinating issues involving this. But to me the most fascinating issue coming out of the ruling is the way in which the majority took a global perspective on this issue. The very provincial narrow approach to this whole issue, which in some respects represents the country disappointed with today’s ruling, but it is only one step in the battle against Trudeau carbon tax. We will be closely reviewing today’s ruling and it will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. I note that today bowling was a 3-2 Split Decision with two two judges providing a detailed dissenting opinion that the carbon tax is in fact unconstitutional. So there are strong grounds for an appeal. Other provinces are proceeding with their own Court challenges in Ontario and New Brunswick and Manitoba and in all likelihood, Albert Saskatchewan plans to intervene each of these cases, but ultimately, the fate of the turtle carbon tax will be decided in the federal election. This fall. What does the carbon tax is? Ruled constitutional question, the fall in Edmonton, the Edmonton Journal. I politics with Marty, patriquin is in Montreal and here with me and Studio Elizabeth Murray, Vestal Paradise. Cantina said he plans to launch a challenge as well. What do you think? Today’S challenges, one Under the UCC government, is going to be getting rid of the carbon tax or here in Alberta on the ground. It seems like this was just too it’s going to continue to try and push this for the car on the flip side, just as much as from your mother was saying, this is going to be a ballot question in the federal election and get here and I’ll Bet it’s going to be pretty pre-decided anywhere. I mean we’re pretty conservative Province, tenth of art. That way has starclan all of the provincial sorry, no, the federal elections, while I’m provincial to I guess when you put it that way. So I think hearing Alberta. People are probably a little bit disappointed, but Jason Kenney is said. You know what we’re just going to continue the fight anyway, I’m way going to actually launched into this cold now to even though we hadn’t Davina status we’re going to get stuck into it Marty. If this is a Ballot Box question the federal election, how does this impact that discussion? You too many step issue. I want that. In fact, I get money step problems are that’s what mr. Moe said. I count two steps: Saskatchewan Lawson, to go to the Supreme Court Supreme Court rules. Ultimately, so the political pressure is going to come from. Obviously, this decision, but also the decisions in Ontario and Manitoba, probably Albert eventually, weather, and if, if the courts there go in favour of other of this, be interesting thing now, of course, is that this decision becomes president, so other courts can rely on it when making Their own decision next, that also include, obviously that includes the Supreme Court political move on the part of provincial of the provincial leaders, so they’re going after him. At that way, there was. This has always been an uphill battle. The idea that that Saskatchewan put for which is a patently absurd, the federal government, doesn’t have the right to regulate or introduced taxes to things that they don’t like is. It is absurd, but they’re going to go to the Motions, not for any reason other than the fact that they don’t like Court interpreted as a regulation and therefore has yet was okay, where are the menorah tint minority? To be perfectly honest, I wasn’t aware of the full scope is Saskatchewan arguments at the time, and this with this one is where the Saskatchewan government actually said that the provincial, the federal government doesn’t have the right to tax property rights and property and civil rights and Other matters a. nature falling within the exclusive provincial legislative Authority. That is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard of my life. It’S it’s! It’S pretending which is Pac-Man service exactly and it’s the same. It’S the same things. Look it’s exactly the same thing as acid rain back in the back in the eighties. You could argue the same thing sure that this decision, necessarily it could influence, but I’m not sure, dictates the decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal will take that the federal court will take for Manitoba and that, whichever Court Jason Kenny decides to address his case to Decide interesting to see what the federal government claims in these cases, because I was talking to an intervener in the Ontario case, who said that the federal government actually tweets their argument in the Ontario case with came after argument was even less intrusive, as some would say Into provincial jurisdiction – and so you could think of this – one came through at 1, even though their argument was more restrictive. If they make it even less restrictive, it could help the government argument down the road that’ll, be something interesting to see. I think it’s definitely a win for the federal liberal government is in court, but it is a wind and no matter if the debate and the positions in the election campaign, which we can already guess and which we already know before the next election political strategy. With the course of the sideshow, the courts are the theater, there are the stage, but this is really about the political strategy that the conservatives and liberals see they both see. This is a fight they can win, and so that’s what what makes it so interesting because you know we’ll see in the fall if they can, which side does win, but both see this as something that they can win, and so because of that we’re seeing is Really big and strong arguments from both sides yeah, it’s so interesting, also Emma, because I feel like they’re making the argument that.. For example, the outcome of provincial elections lately in Ontario are indicative of sentiment that people are against the carbon tax. Yes, they were Central Parts, but do people vote actually more people voted for parties that are so dumb, 40 % with 40 % of population. Every else voted for somebody who was putting forward and put the liberal set earlier or hooking up implementing policies right. I don’t think it’ll change much in Alberta, agree with Emma that people in Alberta don’t want a carbon tax. They probably weren’t going to vote for sure they’re not going to vote anymore or any less for 2 today, but in Ontario people are starting or or the budget that has come down the spring. I wonder if you know they’re, there is also a potential backlash there and it’s not uncommon to see a government of one color provincially and another federally. So I don’t think it’s a guarantee still want to vote for Mr Shearer about the different policies of the budget. Isn’T coming until the full second very well come off to the federal election. So when you’re talking about the impact on the the provincial coffee, is here we’re not going to have a carbon tax anymore. So that is billions of dollars out of the provincial coffee and the UCP hasn’t said where the money is going to come from. You know they’re going to cut the corporate tax right, so that’s going to be less money for the promises. Well, so it’s going to be really interesting to see whether they have the budget before or after the federal election, and because that way, if there are potential implications coming from getting rid of the carbon tax here in Alberta, albertans may not even see that before they Go to the to the Balboa, some corporate tax rates will spur development and growth play point of talking points of the people that are against the carbon tax. The first is that you know people like fishermen and construction workers and Farm Workers were necessarily going to be hurt by the carbon tax in fact says that the fisherman and Forestry workers and are exempt from from this, so it just doesn’t make any sense in provinces, Like Albert and Sons, what does? But you can go to what the public the Parliamentary budget Officer says everybody, except for the knot that the top 20 % top 20 % are will will will spell original video Thomas point at the beginning of this about how albertans feel about the carbon tax. I think is really about that right if you know fast at some point, don’t matter if you feel alienated and feel ignored and feel like you’re economic struggles being recognized by the federal government is a problem for another video thanks for watching
Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the carbon tax imposed on the province by the federal government is constitutionally sound and falls within the legislative authority of Parliament. Premier Scott Moe said the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
To read more: http://cbc.ca/1.5121414

»»» 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 *