Saskatchewan loses Carbon Pricing Battle Round 1
There are those that think after today's ruling that there is a glimmer of hope within the legal system for defeating the Carbon Pricing implemented by the Canadian Federal Government. In my opinion, those people are loonies.
Pretty much every legal expert agreed from the onset that the government was acting within it's right in enacting this legislation. And Saskatchewan was actually the province most likely to win, and now they have lost in their own province's highest court.
In short, it is highly unlikely that the supreme court will see things differently. In fact, it is much more likely to see things in favour of the Federal Government.
Firstly, these challenges in general always had the best chance of succeeding at the provincial level for a key reason. The Provinces rules with the best interest of the Province in mind. So, even while these judges attempt to be objective in their interpretation of the law, they must do so while balancing different concerns. Saskatchewan made this ruling while simultaneously weighing the fact that they were setting precedent. Such a challenge has never been made. And the ramifications set a clearer interpretation of the law for future rulings which didn't exist before. And it is a ruling which concedes powers to the Nation, over the Province.
This is exactly why, two judicial bodies, both attempting objectivity will have different leanings. And this is likely the reason for the split vote. The Supreme Court on the other hand, leans towards judging what is best for Canada as a whole, and on matters such as whether the government should be allowed to impose legislation to protect national interests where Province either won't, or won't to sufficient standards? I find it hard to believe that they will lean more in favour of what the Provinces are pursuing.
Secondly, there is the singular matter making Saskatchewan unique. They had a stronger case for one simple reason. Out of all of the Provinces planning to contest the legislation, they were the only one proposing an alternative. And the only thing cited in the ruling from the 2 justices in the Province's favour revolves around this. They felt it was unconstitutional primarily on the basis that the Federal Governments legislation overrides the Province's legislation and thus refuses them their right to govern themselves.
It is the ONLY even quasi rational argument put forth thus far.
Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick on the other hand. They don't have that. They want to put nothing forth. And on that, their argument is the same as the rest of Saskatchewan's defence. And that defence didn't merit so much as footnote, even from the justices who felt it was unconstitutional.
This of course, should surprise no one.
As best as I can tell, the other Province's governments are using the court challenges as a free political platform. They aren't making sound arguments. And they aren't backing them up with facts. In some cases they are even publicly mis-labeling things (AKA lying).
No decent judge. Not even a sympathetic one, can side with these arguments.
The first problem they make in their defence is regularly calling it a tax. While it is understandable, from the standpoint of a citizen, how it would be considered a tax. Technically, it does not meet the definition. The money is not being retained by the government. And, the way the law is written, the government does not stand to benefit from it.
Furthermore, pretty much every legal expert has said, it wouldn't even matter if it WAS technically a tax. The Federal Government would STILL be operating within their powers to implement one.
In courts, as in the press, they all, also ignore the rebates or attempt to spin them otherwise. Which, of course, the judges threw back in the faces of the Ontario government and likely the Saskatchewan one, though I didn't read up as much on that one.
The next problem is that the Provinces engaging in these suits act as though this is being forced upon them with no recourse. But, that is also patently false given how the law is written. They have a way out. Propose their own legislation that can be reasonably expected to reduce carbon emissions or equally targets the offenders. In fact, Ontario must just look idiotic in court. They are only there because they scrapped a bill from the former Provincial government which met the criteria and replaced it with nothing and have announced no concrete plans to do so.
The final nail in the coffin is, many accede that climate change is man made and is a threat. But then argue that Carbon Pricing isn't effective. Yet, studies seem to show this to be a lie. And, the Federal Government can produce numerous independent studies to back their claims of the effectiveness of Carbon Pricing, while the opponents have no comparable studies to lean upon.
Frankly, I feel like this is all a smokescreen. With an election around the corner, they can't advertise against the Federal Liberal Government's plan. So, what can they do? The can start frivolous lawsuits that will get lots of media attention. They will make arguments which aren't on sound legal grounds but which sound good to their constituents. And when they fail, I've seen them make 2 claims; that they will take it to the Supreme Court (where they know they will fail) and they will take it to the vote in October.
That last bit is clever. The news has covered their arguments. Their arguments are their propaganda. While they will likely try to win via the courts, they also know they are likely doomed. Especially now. Saskatchewan honestly had the best chances. With them losing in their own Province, they are basically dead in the water on legal grounds.
But, being able to televise that they will take it to the votes, they have turned their failure into a free PR campaign against the Liberal Government in a way which won't run afoul of the advertising restrictions.
I don't really believe that this carte blanche Carbon Pricing is the "best" option. The studies back it up though; it seems to work. If you're not willing to put forward a better idea, I don't think you should be complaining.
Also, chances are, you'll come out of this tax richer. And, likely for most of, if not the entire period over which the prices will rise. I worked it out, and the Federal Rebate most people will receive in the first year? You would have to put over 140l in your vehicle per week, every week, for a year to make less back in gas than the rebate. While gas isn't the only place you'll get hit. It should be the lions share. By a large margin. Enough of a margin to not real bother looking elsewhere.
I commuted from Barrie to Toronto in an CUV, and I would have exceeded it for a period then when I wasn't carpooling with another person. But, just barely. And, I could easily addressed that while still being an environmental ass and driving only myself, simply by driving a more fuel efficient vehicle.
Hybrids and PHEV's aren't much more than gas cars. And if you're putting that kind of mileage on, it WILL pay for itself. Quick. And if you're driving that much... you ARE a serious part of the problem. You SHOULD be paying. One of the reasons I started carpooling was because I knew I was being irresponsible. I also bought increasingly more fuel efficient cars.
Honestly, we ALL should be paying. That money really shouldn't be coming back to us with no strings attached. Some money should certainly go back to those most at risk. There are certainly a class of citizen who cannot safely absorb the costs. A large portion should go to retraining and supporting those in industries supported by carbon emissions so we can revolutionize our workforce while protecting the jobs which will be put at risk. Some money should be put into R&D grants. And some money should be put into green energy initiatives like helping ordinary people afford things like solar panels, or more fuel efficient vehicles like hybrids, PHEV's and BEV's.
Giving me a minor rebate check every few months might ease things a bit. But, it doesn't help me make better choices as much as rebates that help bring more environmentally friendly products closer in price to their competitors.
I agree, Tesla's buyers probably don't need rebates. But, if those rebates can put a Prius Hybrid, or a Kona, in the price range of the average consumer then that is meaningful.
Pretty much every legal expert agreed from the onset that the government was acting within it's right in enacting this legislation. And Saskatchewan was actually the province most likely to win, and now they have lost in their own province's highest court.
In short, it is highly unlikely that the supreme court will see things differently. In fact, it is much more likely to see things in favour of the Federal Government.
Firstly, these challenges in general always had the best chance of succeeding at the provincial level for a key reason. The Provinces rules with the best interest of the Province in mind. So, even while these judges attempt to be objective in their interpretation of the law, they must do so while balancing different concerns. Saskatchewan made this ruling while simultaneously weighing the fact that they were setting precedent. Such a challenge has never been made. And the ramifications set a clearer interpretation of the law for future rulings which didn't exist before. And it is a ruling which concedes powers to the Nation, over the Province.
This is exactly why, two judicial bodies, both attempting objectivity will have different leanings. And this is likely the reason for the split vote. The Supreme Court on the other hand, leans towards judging what is best for Canada as a whole, and on matters such as whether the government should be allowed to impose legislation to protect national interests where Province either won't, or won't to sufficient standards? I find it hard to believe that they will lean more in favour of what the Provinces are pursuing.
Secondly, there is the singular matter making Saskatchewan unique. They had a stronger case for one simple reason. Out of all of the Provinces planning to contest the legislation, they were the only one proposing an alternative. And the only thing cited in the ruling from the 2 justices in the Province's favour revolves around this. They felt it was unconstitutional primarily on the basis that the Federal Governments legislation overrides the Province's legislation and thus refuses them their right to govern themselves.
It is the ONLY even quasi rational argument put forth thus far.
Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick on the other hand. They don't have that. They want to put nothing forth. And on that, their argument is the same as the rest of Saskatchewan's defence. And that defence didn't merit so much as footnote, even from the justices who felt it was unconstitutional.
This of course, should surprise no one.
As best as I can tell, the other Province's governments are using the court challenges as a free political platform. They aren't making sound arguments. And they aren't backing them up with facts. In some cases they are even publicly mis-labeling things (AKA lying).
No decent judge. Not even a sympathetic one, can side with these arguments.
The first problem they make in their defence is regularly calling it a tax. While it is understandable, from the standpoint of a citizen, how it would be considered a tax. Technically, it does not meet the definition. The money is not being retained by the government. And, the way the law is written, the government does not stand to benefit from it.
Furthermore, pretty much every legal expert has said, it wouldn't even matter if it WAS technically a tax. The Federal Government would STILL be operating within their powers to implement one.
In courts, as in the press, they all, also ignore the rebates or attempt to spin them otherwise. Which, of course, the judges threw back in the faces of the Ontario government and likely the Saskatchewan one, though I didn't read up as much on that one.
The next problem is that the Provinces engaging in these suits act as though this is being forced upon them with no recourse. But, that is also patently false given how the law is written. They have a way out. Propose their own legislation that can be reasonably expected to reduce carbon emissions or equally targets the offenders. In fact, Ontario must just look idiotic in court. They are only there because they scrapped a bill from the former Provincial government which met the criteria and replaced it with nothing and have announced no concrete plans to do so.
The final nail in the coffin is, many accede that climate change is man made and is a threat. But then argue that Carbon Pricing isn't effective. Yet, studies seem to show this to be a lie. And, the Federal Government can produce numerous independent studies to back their claims of the effectiveness of Carbon Pricing, while the opponents have no comparable studies to lean upon.
Frankly, I feel like this is all a smokescreen. With an election around the corner, they can't advertise against the Federal Liberal Government's plan. So, what can they do? The can start frivolous lawsuits that will get lots of media attention. They will make arguments which aren't on sound legal grounds but which sound good to their constituents. And when they fail, I've seen them make 2 claims; that they will take it to the Supreme Court (where they know they will fail) and they will take it to the vote in October.
That last bit is clever. The news has covered their arguments. Their arguments are their propaganda. While they will likely try to win via the courts, they also know they are likely doomed. Especially now. Saskatchewan honestly had the best chances. With them losing in their own Province, they are basically dead in the water on legal grounds.
But, being able to televise that they will take it to the votes, they have turned their failure into a free PR campaign against the Liberal Government in a way which won't run afoul of the advertising restrictions.
I don't really believe that this carte blanche Carbon Pricing is the "best" option. The studies back it up though; it seems to work. If you're not willing to put forward a better idea, I don't think you should be complaining.
Also, chances are, you'll come out of this tax richer. And, likely for most of, if not the entire period over which the prices will rise. I worked it out, and the Federal Rebate most people will receive in the first year? You would have to put over 140l in your vehicle per week, every week, for a year to make less back in gas than the rebate. While gas isn't the only place you'll get hit. It should be the lions share. By a large margin. Enough of a margin to not real bother looking elsewhere.
I commuted from Barrie to Toronto in an CUV, and I would have exceeded it for a period then when I wasn't carpooling with another person. But, just barely. And, I could easily addressed that while still being an environmental ass and driving only myself, simply by driving a more fuel efficient vehicle.
Hybrids and PHEV's aren't much more than gas cars. And if you're putting that kind of mileage on, it WILL pay for itself. Quick. And if you're driving that much... you ARE a serious part of the problem. You SHOULD be paying. One of the reasons I started carpooling was because I knew I was being irresponsible. I also bought increasingly more fuel efficient cars.
Honestly, we ALL should be paying. That money really shouldn't be coming back to us with no strings attached. Some money should certainly go back to those most at risk. There are certainly a class of citizen who cannot safely absorb the costs. A large portion should go to retraining and supporting those in industries supported by carbon emissions so we can revolutionize our workforce while protecting the jobs which will be put at risk. Some money should be put into R&D grants. And some money should be put into green energy initiatives like helping ordinary people afford things like solar panels, or more fuel efficient vehicles like hybrids, PHEV's and BEV's.
Giving me a minor rebate check every few months might ease things a bit. But, it doesn't help me make better choices as much as rebates that help bring more environmentally friendly products closer in price to their competitors.
I agree, Tesla's buyers probably don't need rebates. But, if those rebates can put a Prius Hybrid, or a Kona, in the price range of the average consumer then that is meaningful.
Comments
Post a Comment