fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: Trudeau must refund his Illegal carbon tax

As of press time, the Trudeau government was silent about any return of the ill-gotten loot.

mm

Published

on

In the Greta Thunberg Cup, the series is Carbon Tax: 2, Taxpayers 1.

But the score of justices ruling in the Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario appeals is just 8-to-7 for Ottawa. In Ontario, Ottawa won 4 justices to 1. In Saskatchewan, Team Carbon won 3-to-2.

Upsetting the series was Alberta, winning 4-to-1. The federal carbon tax now heads to the Supreme Court, which will sit in final judgement of its constitutionality.

The opinion of the Alberta Court of Appeal was stinging.

“The act [carbon tax] is a constitutional Trojan Horse…Almost every aspect of the provinces’ development and management of their natural resources would be subject to federal regulation.”

This means that if the carbon tax is allowed to stand as is, Ottawa would have almost limitless power to pick and choose which provinces to tax and regulate. In short, it would be the end of any pretence of division-of-powers federalism.

It’s the first big victory of the anti-carbon tax coalition after being lectured by leftist politicians and pundits that Ottawa could do anything it liked, and so it made no sense to resist as provinces.

Rachel Notley made this argument as premier, regularly lecturing the opposition Wildrose and PCs that their opposition was hollow. The appellate court’s ruling punched a hole straight through her argument, and left her smarting.

“As long as we have a government here in Alberta that resists significant, meaningful effort that can be consistently relied upon by international investors to address climate change, while setting out clear rules for how we grow our oil and gas resources in a responsible way, Alberta will be left behind.”

She couldn’t come out and say it, but she was cheering for Ottawa’s right to shove its carbon tax down Alberta’s throat. She has reasons to do so.

First, she sincerely believes that a carbon tax on Alberta would help to save the planet. Be your own judge.

Second, she would like nothing more than for the carbon tax albatros around her party’s neck to be off by the time she runs to re-take the Premier’s Office in 2023.

And third, the federalist-left has always welcomed greater federal power as a means of neutralizing Alberta’s reactionary, backward, conservative instincts. It’s an old play that began with Alexander Rutherford, through Alison Redford, to the NDP leader today.

But try as she might, the vast majority of Albertans that want no carbon tax half-won. I say “half-won”, because Alberta still has a large carbon tax. They just renamed the old NDP tax, removed it from consumers (home heating and gasoline), and kept it on most industry.

But I quibble. We aren’t supposed to care about that carbon tax. The point is that this carbon tax has been repealed, and it was a great day in court for good guys.

But this begs the question: If the federal carbon tax is unconstitutional (that is, very illegal), why are we still paying it? Why – pray tell – is Ottawa keeping the money that they have illegally shaken down from Albertans (and all Canadians in provinces in opposition to the tax)?

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe were both right on the money when they said that Ottawa should reimburse taxpayers for the illegal collection. Posthaste.

Alberta Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer asked the federal government in a letter to “work out a process for the reimbursement to Albertans of taxes paid.”

That could prove more complicated than at first glance.

Unlike income taxes, there’s no real way to know how much each individual household pays in the carbon tax each year. It’s not just a matter of counting every single gas station receipt and home heating bill in the country. It’s also the passed-on costs from more expensive groceries and consumer goods, which we don’t see directly. Albertans that live in colder climates and rural areas, or drive to work, pay far more than a barista biking to his/her coffee shop in balmy Vancouver.

One option would be a flat rebate to each household, where governments can do their best to calculate the average tax paid. But that is the problem with the current “rebate” program, since it doesn’t really know how much each individual household paid in carbon taxes.

The other option would be for Ottawa to “rebate” the revenue collected to each province from which it was plundered. The provincial government could then decide on a one-time income tax reduction or payout, but again, this system doesn’t have any way of know what people paid in the first place.

There’s no right way to do it, but any option is better than leaving it in the kleptocratic paws of Ottawa.

It could all be a moot point though. As of press time, the Trudeau government was silent about any return of the ill-gotten loot. They may just decide to keep it in their wallet until the case is finally decided at the Supreme Court.

And Team Carbon Tax has a strong chance in the final round. Although the majority of the Supreme Court was appointed by Stephen Harper, many of them regularly side with the Liberal appointees in making dubious decisions. Their decision to allow governments to fine otherwise innocent people for transporting beer between provinces comes to mind. The Supreme Court has a poor institutional record of deciding federal-provincial matters in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

But that doesn’t mean that it’s a hopeless case. Or even if it was, that it isn’t worth fighting.

Derek Fildebrandt is Publisher of the Western Standard and the President and CEO of Wildrose Media Corp.

Opinion

McCOLL: Ending Alberta’s paid plasma ban is the right thing to do

Tany Yao’s private members bill would lift the NDP’s ban on people being paid for giving their own blood.

mm

Published

on

On October 26, UCP MLA Tany Yao’s private member’s bill – Bill 204: The Voluntary Blood Donations Repeal Act – was debated in the legislature. It is now only one step away from repealing the previous NDP government’s 2017 law that banned private paid plasma clinics.

In an interview with the Western Standard, Tany Yao outlined how this issue has been important to him since he was the opposition health critic in 2017. Back then, Yao said that the law “does more harm than good.” 

History has proven him right, as the NDP law made it illegal for pharmaceutical companies to make plasma medicines in Alberta by paying donors like they do in the United States and Saskatchewan. Proposals to build paid plasma clinics and laboratories to manufacture plasma medicines in Alberta were cancelled.

Yao stated that the goal of his bill is to “attract those companies to develop these life saving medications right here in Alberta.” When it came to objections from the NDP, Yao lamented: “I do find it unfortunate that only labour groups are fighting this. Their arguments are from the 1980s and from the tainted blood scandal.” When asked to explain the opposition from public sector unions and Canadian Blood Services (CBS) – even though CBS imports paid plasma products from the United States and has testified that paid plasma products are perfectly safe Yao said, “Labour is trying to protect their monopoly given to them by the NDP. [CBS] admits they cost more versus private companies.”

Over seventy per cent of global plasma comes from paid donors in the United States. It’s a $26 billion (USD) industrythat should grow to $40 billion by 2040. Plasma medicines make up a greater share of US exports than steel or aluminium. This is a high-tech growth industry that saves lives, creates high paying jobs, and could attract billions of dollars in pharmaceutical company investment to Alberta. 

During Monday’s debate, UCP MLAs Jackie Lovely, Mark Smith, Devinder Toor, Michaela Glasgo, Ronald Orr, and Richard Gotfried all spoke in support of bill 204. As Yao predicted, NDP MLAs Richard Feehan, Marie Renaud, Lorne Dach, and Shannon Phillips spoke against the bill voicing debunked public safety concerns. NDP MLA Marie Renaud argued that it would be morally wrong to allow low income Albertans to be paid for their blood. She didn’t say how rich you had to be for it to be moral to earn an extra $2000 per year for weekly donations of life saving plasma.

One NDP critique of the bill was that all paid plasma donations made in Alberta would be exported to other countries. If the NDP MLAs had paid attention to Dr. Peter Jaworski’s July testimony to the Standing Committee on Private Bills, they would know that Canadian plasma is exported because CBS refuses to buy it – even when offered lower prices!

“Canadian Plasma Resources was only Health Canada-certified when they first opened… It is only when Canadian Blood Services rejected their offer of all of their plasma in 2016 at $166 per litre, which was 20 per cent less than the price in the United States, that Canadian Plasma Resources sought to get European Medicines Agency approval, which means that they are allowed to sell their plasma within the European market… Canadian Plasma Resources has made two subsequent offers to Canadian Blood Services. In 2018 they offered all of their plasma at $195 a litre for a term of seven years and then most recently in 2019, $220 per litre for a term of 20 years.”

CBS unpaid plasma donation centres cost the taxpayer about $412 dollars per litre. The answer to this problem is clear: first pass Bill 204, then open paid plasma centres in Alberta, and finally shame CBS and Ottawa into ending the irrational policy of importing American paid plasma instead of buying Canadian paid plasma.

Alex McColl is the National Defence Columnist with the Western Standard and a Canadian military analyst

Continue Reading

Opinion

Sask PCs Say “no” to merger with Buffalo Party

With 17 candidates, the BP won 2.9 per cent of the vote. The PCs with 31 candidates won 2 per cent. In ridings in which they ran, the BP averaged 10 per cent, and the PCs 4 per cent.

mm

Published

on

A recent column in the Western Standard proposed the idea of uniting Saskatchewan’s Buffalo and PC parties. Progressive Conservative candidates and leadership responded quickly with a hard ‘no.’ 

“Won’t happen Lee,” PC leader Ken Grey posted on Facebook below the article. “We will welcome ex-Buffalo members but merger is a no go. We are a federalist party and from what I see Buffalo wants to broker left and right wing ideologies. We are different parties with different mandates.”

Grey cited the Buffalo Party’s approach of reaching out to both left and right policy goals. “That’s distasteful to me,” said Grey, whose party slogan is “True Conservative.”

The Buffalo Party – despite being just a few months old and running in a handful of ridings – finished as Saskatchewan’s third-place party on October 26th. With 17 candidates, the BP won 2.9 per cent of the vote. The PCs with 31 candidates won 2 per cent. In ridings in which they ran, the BP averaged 10 per cent, and the PCs 4 per cent. 

Frank Serfas, a founding signatory of the Western Independence Party and its interim leader in 2015, placed third as the PC candidate in Moosemin. He commented on my Facebook post, “Any talk of PCs and Buffalo merging are completely [p]remature and [h]alf [b]aked.”

In an interview, Serfas said that he joined the PCs in 2018 to support Ken Grey’s leadership bid, but also bought a membership in Wexit Saskatchewan (the Buffalo Party’s original name). He said the Buffalo Party lacks the needed foundation to last.

“No constitution, no membership-adopted platform. There is no elected executive, no elected leader,” Serfas said. “I’ve been watching this a long time, since the early 80s. The only time western separatist parties or independence parties had any traction is when their leaders were legitimately elected by the grassroots.”

Serfas said the party initially indicated they would do these things, then gave reasons why it did not. “Covid. Not enough people. Oh, and my favorite one was not enough time,” he said.

“They’re two different parties in two different places, organization wise, leadership wise, stuff like that. Things still need to be settled in both camps before you can even start dialogue.”

Ironically, a PC press release on August 13 already called it a “merger” when former Wexit candidates such as Harry Frank decided to run as PC candidates. “This merger comes after complaints of top down decisions, candidate removals without reason, and dictatorial style leadership within the Buffalo Party.”

The press release quoted Frank saying, “By uniting the right we have a greater chance of being in a position to challenge this liberal leaning SaskParty and pushing for the changes the residents of this province have been needing.”

The two parties share common policy ground in supporting MLA recall, a provincial police force, and a referendum on equalization to trigger a constitutional convention, all welcomed by Serfas.

“They’re willing to explore other avenues of autonomy. That’s a good start. But the thing you have to remember is that the PCs are a party with one foot in the past and one foot trying to reach into the future,” Serfas said.

Serfas said the PC Party trust fund was one example of control by legacy PCs.

“The party leader does not control that. The party executive does not control it. There is a trust executive that is basically made up of PC luminaries of the past, and they control it.”

PC candidate Tony Ollenberger was a founding member of the Alberta First Party and ran as a candidate in 2001. His former party eventually was refounded in 2018 as the Freedom Conservative Party of Alberta. The FCP would later merge with Wexit Alberta to form the Wildrose Independence Party. 

Ollenberger does not want the Saskatchewan PCs to follow suit. 

“Buffalo is a flash in the pan. This is exactly what happened with the Alberta Independence Party in 2001,” Ollenberger said. “When they come onto the scene, and not even as a registered party, immediately the media just jumped all over them because they were just the next great thing. And you know after the election in 2001 they went nowhere.”

Ollenberg said his decades of observing independence movements in both provinces suggests some Buffalo Party members will eventually challenge interim leader Wade Sira’s position of “secession if necessary, but not necessarily secession.”

“He’s going to find someone come along and saying, ‘Well we need to separate now,’ and they’ll factionalize, and then they’ll refractionalize… until there’s six parties that need to get registered,” Ollenberger said.

“I’ve seen this movie before and I’ve seen exactly how it ends,” said Ollenberger. “We’d be shooing ourselves in the foot if we wanted to hitch our wagon to the Buffalo Party because I see the same fate unfolding again.”

Ollenberger, who placed third in Saskatoon Fairview, said the party’s message of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility had a positive response at the doors.

“We certainly need to do more to get our main track on the political radar, get our messaging out there, and make sure that people understand that there is a difference – that when people hear the word ‘Conservative’ they think of us again and not the Sask Party.”

Lee Harding is the Saskatchewan Correspondent for the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Opinion

LETTER: Canada’s electoral system is broken

“There is more than one good reason for getting rid of this destructive and un-democratic FPTP electoral system beginning with the ballot that makes voting extremely challenging and unfair, because voters are forced to chose between party or candidate.”

mm

Published

on

RE: Horgan leads NDP to majority government in B.C.

Another election, producing another fake-majority government most of the people do not want, and conducted a year before it was mandated, by law.

Our system of government is called parliamentary democracy, because the party or coalition with the greatest number of elected Members, will form a majority government while it only represents a minority of the people.

That is very different from the true democratic governments they have in Scandinavian and European countries, where the political power is vested and exercised by the people directly or indirectly through the elected Members of government.

There is more than one good reason for getting rid of this destructive and un-democratic FPTP electoral system beginning with the ballot that makes voting extremely challenging and unfair, because voters are forced to chose between party or candidate.

Canada has a very dysfunctional multi-party system, that continues to erode any semblance of democracy.

Andy Thomsen
Kelowna

Continue Reading

Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter

Free news and updates
* = required field

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.