No Surprises. Supreme Court Upholds the Carbon Tax.

 

In a 6-3 split decision the Supreme Court of Canada, as expected, has upheld the Trudeau government's carbon tax.

Some will use the 3 justices dissent to attack the judgment and the government but that's to be expected of anything short of a unanimous verdict.

Now we'll see if the prime minister gets a case of 'winner's remorse.' This doesn't seem an auspicious time to be levying additional taxes at the pump. In a faux democracy where four per cent of the vote can mean the difference between majority and minority or, worse, between minority and a change of government, riling up the public can be perilous.

Comments

  1. Supreme Court Upholds the Carbon Tax
    Hey Jason, what does 'duh' mean?

    And on the bigger question, (our Supreme Court RULING that climate change is real), it was 7-2

    "Applying the threshold question, Canada has adduced evidence that clearly shows that establishing minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions is of sufficient concern to Canada as a whole that it warrants consideration in accordance with the national concern doctrine. The history of efforts to address climate change in Canada reflects the critical role of carbon pricing strategies in policies to reduce GHG emissions.

    There is also a broad consensus among expert international bodies that carbon pricing is a critical measure for the reduction of GHG emissions. This matter is critical to our response to an existential threat to human life in Canada and around the world.
    As a result, it passes the threshold test and warrants consideration as a possible matter of national concern."

    "Per Côté J. (dissenting in part): There is agreement with the majority with respect to the formulation of the national concern test. "

    as far as I can see, Blogger Brown and his Newfie wingman sidestepped the issue and stuck with those legal 'technicalities' they pretend to abhor. The majority's decision is readable. Their drivelling dissents, nonsensical.

    https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18781/index.do

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question becomes can this ruling be applied as a yardstick to measure the government's climate policies? Is it a double-edged sword. I do so hope.

      Delete
    2. The question becomes can this ruling be applied as a yardstick to measure the government's climate policies? Is it a double-edged sword. I do so hope.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Navigating the Minefield of Short-Termism

Washington Post Calls for Doug Ford to Resign

The Stammering Man