[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Dion

Okay, fair enough. The below is a quote from Kenney on how Kenney would do it differently...

That doesn't address the federal requirements, so it's a moot point. Which I'm sure you realized when he said this:

He vowed that, if the UCP wins the 2019 provincial election, he would repeal the portion of Alberta's carbon tax that applies to consumers and launch a legal challenge over Ottawa's mandated minimum carbon prices.

"We will see the federal government in court," he said.

So my question, again, is how the UCP has argued to meet the federal requirements while getting rid of what you want them to get rid of.

Originally Posted by Dion

My understanding is the provinces fighting the carbon tax have asked the court to rule on whether the federal government’s plan to impose a carbon tax on the province is constitutional.

There's a lot of moving parts so I don't want to oversimplify it. The big one is whether the federal government, in essence, can force the provincial level to implement it's own tax system. Which is what occurred (either you come up with your own, or you follow us). There's a very good argument to be made there.

“It is our position that under the Canadian Constitution, provinces are sovereign in their assigned areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, the federal carbon tax is constitutionally illegitimate because it applies only in those provinces that have not exercised their own jurisdiction in a way that the federal government thinks they should,” Mr. Moe said in a statement.

However, even Saskatechewan has conceded in it's argument that if the federal government came up with a broad Canada-wide carbon tax, there's little room for recourse.

Section 91.3 gives parliament the ability to:

91.It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

...
3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
...

So as long as the Federal government can argue that (a Federal, Canada-Wide) Carbon Tax is for the purpose to raise money, well there's not much room.

So now, the challengers need to argue that the carbon tax isn't being used to fund money but implement environmental policy. One argument for that would be the rebates being given. And even then the Federal government would have opportunities to argue otherwise.

Congrats, the ultimate outcome (if they succeed) is a Carbon Tax implemented outside of Alberta's control, without rebates. As long as the Liberals are in power, the UCP arguing the Carbon Tax is really a red herring in my opinion, they might as well be yelling "lock her up!"

(Again oversimplification, lots of moving parts, but with the Liberals in power, it's an uphill near pointless battle to fight a Carbon tax).