Recapping day one of Ontario’s carbon tax hearing

First published at True North on April 15, 2019.

The much-awaited constitutional challenge of the federal government’s carbon tax kicked off Monday at Osgoode Hall, with lawyers for Ontario’s attorney general first up on the docket laying out their objections to the carbon pricing scheme.

It was made clear early on in the provincial government’s submission, as well as its opening argument, that climate change and global warming are not, themselves, on trial. Rather, the federal government’s one-size-fits-all approach to tackling it is.

Whether a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, an incentive program or some other penalty for big polluters is the best way to curb environmental issues is a “policy question, not a legal question,” one of Ontario’s lawyers, Joshua Hunter, argued.

Ontario’s legal approach appears, at least on the surface, to be rooted in separating the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act’s policy implications from its constitutionality, though a good chunk of the opening argument was nevertheless devoted to pointing out how the federal plan is, in fact, inefficient and ignores other actions undertaken by Ontario.

Hunter argued the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which imposes a carbon tax on provinces lacking their own pricing schemes meeting the federal government’s standards, focuses solely on the price governments put on emissions and not the broader picture of climate and environmental policy, even when such policy specifically reduces emissions.

One compelling example offered by Hunter is the decision by Ontario’s previous government under Kathleen Wynne to shutter its coal-powered electrical plants. Doing so reduced emissions by 22 per cent—arguably more than a carbon tax ever could—but amounts to nothing in the federal government’s view because it isn’t a pricing scheme.

Hunter also pointed out that the Climate Action Incentive, an income tax rebate given by the federal government to residents of provinces without carbon prices, redistributes carbon tax revenue indiscriminate of actual personal emissions and carbon output. For example, a long-haul truck driver based in Ottawa who burns thousands of dollars of fuel each year will receive the same amount as a Torontonian who walks to work every day.

While this observation speaks to the ridiculousness of Trudeau’s climate plan, it doesn’t appear to advance the idea of unconstitutionality, though I’m no lawyer.

Unfortunately, Canadian courts have opted to weigh in on policy questions in the past rather than taking a strict constitutional view of things, so I won’t dare predict an outcome this early.

Ontario raised a significant concern about where federal government’s claim of jurisdiction could lead on this matter. Hunter argued that if the federal government is able to regulate greenhouse gases per se, it would also give the government license to regulate anything that causes greenhouse gases. This would run the gamut of pretty much all human activity, letting the federal government trump provincial jurisdiction on whether cars are allowed, how people heat their homes, and virtually everything else.

In the afternoon the case got a bit into the weeds on subjects I’ll have to explore further before rendering an opinion. One of Ontario’s lawyers, Padraic Ryan, spent a considerable amount of his time on the semantics of whether Trudeau’s carbon tax is, in fact, a tax.

There’s a political question about whether a price on carbon is different from a tax on carbon. As it turns out, there’s also a constitutional question there. Ryan argued the federal government doesn’t explicitly refer to it as a tax in the legislation authorizing the price on carbon; ergo Parliament hasn’t yet authorized a tax in the eyes of the law. This would make it an unconstitutional tax because it has the practical effect of being a tax without the legal authorization to be one. It occupies a weird twilight zone in Ontario’s view because the price also doesn’t meet the legal threshold to be termed a regulatory charge.

There was a fair bit of attention given to how Ontario defines it, suggesting this will play heavily as the week progresses.

Aren’t you glad I’m sitting in on this and not you?

The court reconvenes Tuesday morning at 10:00 am with the federal government laying out its opening arguments.

Recapping day one of Ontario’s carbon tax hearing

The Ontario government is challenging Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax in court, with a four-day constitutional hearing taking place this week at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Thanks to the support of donors to our crowdfunding campaign, True North fellow Andrew Lawton is covering the hearing live from Toronto.

The much-awaited constitutional challenge of the federal government’s carbon tax kicked off Monday at Osgoode Hall, with lawyers for Ontario’s attorney general first up on the docket laying out their objections to the carbon pricing scheme.

It was made clear early on in the provincial government’s submission, as well as its opening argument, that climate change and global warming are not, themselves, on trial. Rather, the federal government’s one-size-fits-all approach to tackling it is.

Whether a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, an incentive program or some other penalty for big polluters is the best way to curb environmental issues is a “policy question, not a legal question,” one of Ontario’s lawyers, Joshua Hunter, argued.

Ontario’s legal approach appears, at least on the surface, to be rooted in separating the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act’s policy implications from its constitutionality, though a good chunk of the opening argument was nevertheless devoted to pointing out how the federal plan is, in fact, inefficient and ignores other actions undertaken by Ontario.

Hunter argued the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which imposes a carbon tax on provinces lacking their own pricing schemes meeting the federal government’s standards, focuses solely on the price governments put on emissions and not the broader picture of climate and environmental policy, even when such policy specifically reduces emissions.

One compelling example offered by Hunter is the decision by Ontario’s previous government under Kathleen Wynne to shutter its coal-powered electrical plants. Doing so reduced emissions by 22 per cent—arguably more than a carbon tax ever could—but amounts to nothing in the federal government’s view because it isn’t a pricing scheme.

Hunter also pointed out that the Climate Action Incentive, an income tax rebate given by the federal government to residents of provinces without carbon prices, redistributes carbon tax revenue indiscriminate of actual personal emissions and carbon output. For example, a long-haul truck driver based in Ottawa who burns thousands of dollars of fuel each year will receive the same amount as a Torontonian who walks to work every day.

While this observation speaks to the ridiculousness of Trudeau’s climate plan, it doesn’t appear to advance the idea of unconstitutionality, though I’m no lawyer.

Unfortunately, Canadian courts have opted to weigh in on policy questions in the past rather than taking a strict constitutional view of things, so I won’t dare predict an outcome this early.

Ontario raised a significant concern about where federal government’s claim of jurisdiction could lead on this matter. Hunter argued that if the federal government is able to regulate greenhouse gases per se, it would also give the government license to regulate anything that causes greenhouse gases. This would run the gamut of pretty much all human activity, letting the federal government trump provincial jurisdiction on whether cars are allowed, how people heat their homes, and virtually everything else.

In the afternoon the case got a bit into the weeds on subjects I’ll have to explore further before rendering an opinion. One of Ontario’s lawyers, Padraic Ryan, spent a considerable amount of his time on the semantics of whether Trudeau’s carbon tax is, in fact, a tax.

There’s a political question about whether a price on carbon is different from a tax on carbon. As it turns out, there’s also a constitutional question there. Ryan argued the federal government doesn’t explicitly refer to it as a tax in the legislation authorizing the price on carbon; ergo Parliament hasn’t yet authorized a tax in the eyes of the law. This would make it an unconstitutional tax because it has the practical effect of being a tax without the legal authorization to be one. It occupies a weird twilight zone in Ontario’s view because the price also doesn’t meet the legal threshold to be termed a regulatory charge.

There was a fair bit of attention given to how Ontario defines it, suggesting this will play heavily as the week progresses.

Aren’t you glad I’m sitting in on this and not you?

The court reconvenes Tuesday morning at 10:00 am with the federal government laying out its opening arguments.

Prayer isn’t useless. Just ask around.

People around the world are praying for the victims of the horrific terror attacks in New Zealand mosques, and their families.

How anyone finds that objectionable I don’t understand.

Regardless of specific religions or denominations, people of faith generally agree prayer is the most important thing to do in times of both celebration and tragedy.

Prayer often manifests as a request, but it can also be a message of gratitude, or even of anger. Regardless of a specific prayer, it’s about recognizing there is a power that exists above you, which is both true and comforting, especially when events like those in New Zealand force us to confront the very worst of humanity.

The relationship between man and God is often lost on those who lack it. This isn’t a judgment of those people. Except so often instead of merely not partaking in prayer, they mock those who do.

New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had stern words for those who prayed in the wake of the New Zealand massacre that claimed 49 lives.

“What good are your thoughts & prayers when they don’t even keep the pews safe?”, she tweeted.

Critics were quick to point out that Ocasio-Cortez’s tweet was particularly tone deaf given the the victims were gunned down praying in a house of worship that wouldn’t exist without prayer.

She attempted to walk back the comment by saying it was an attack against the National Rifle Association.

“‘Thoughts and prayers’ is reference to the NRA’s phrase used to deflect conversation away from policy change during tragedies,” she added later. “Not directed to PM Ardern, who I greatly admire.”

Her sentiment is one often expressed after mass shootings, when people chide politicians who offer prayers but not gun control in response to tragedy.

In this case, however, no one was talking about the NRA, which wields no political clout in New Zealand. Yet she still decided to mock those who find comfort in faith and prayer while politicizing another country’s horror.

I don’t fault people for not understanding the power of prayer if they’ve never experienced it. But I do take issue with those who refuse to recognize the tremendous role it plays in the lives of others, especially victims of tragedy.

On the two year anniversary of the 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting in January, I attended a screening of “Your Last Walk in the Mosque,” a documentary that is more about legacies of the six Muslim men killed that day than it is about the killings themselves. Even so, it was still an evocative account of a horrific episode.

Despite the grief and sadness in the victims’ widows, friends and families, it was moving to see how all had taken solace in their faith to get them through the pain.

It was through a negative event in my own life that I found my own faith and relationship with God as a Christian. Anyone who asks around will find that people of faith don’t pray in spite of tragedy—they pray because of it.

The act of prayer wields more power than any politician, white paper or rousing rendition of ‘Imagine’ ever will.

Of course this doesn’t mean prayer should exist in a vacuum without other action. I don’t believe praying for a cure replaces taking medication, nor do I believe praying for safety means you shouldn’t lock your doors at night. It’s prayer that gives the comfort, clarity, and even outcome to embolden these things.

I doubt the naysayers have ever asked people around them what prayer has done for them. The answers might just bear a lesson or two.

Tommy Robinson heading back to court

Less than five months after a United Kingdom judge referred Tommy Robinson’s contempt of court case to the attorney general, a new hearing has been ordered for the English activist.

United Kingdom Attorney General Geoffrey Cox said Thursday that there are “strong grounds” to bring new proceedings against Robinson. The case will be re-heard in London on March 22.

The question of whether Robinson was in contempt of court stems from a live stream he hosted last May outside the Leeds courthouse where a number of now-convicted sex groomers were appearing. Robinson, whose sentence on an earlier contempt finding was suspended, was arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced to 13 months behind bars within a matter of five hours. He was hauled off to prison that very day despite the administrative nature of his offense.

He appealed the conviction in August, prompting a judge to acknowledge numerous errors made by the Leeds judge who prosecuted him. A new hearing was ordered for October at the Old Bailey.

In October, Recorder of London Nicholas Hilliard found that Robinson’s statement raised enough doubts about the case that it should be referred to the attorney general, who has been tight-lipped on his plans until issuing his decision Thursday.

I was in the courthouse for that hearing, during which you may remember I overheard British Press Association journalists conspiring to manipulate their coverage of Robinson and his legal ordeal.

Robinson has long maintained that he will end up behind bars regardless, citing the prosecutorial witchhunt that he says has dogged him to this point.

If scheduling permits, I hope to be back in London to cover the case’s latest developments.

Remember when SNC-Lavalin funnelled $100k to the Liberals?

A bombshell Globe and Mail report accuses key players in the Prime Minister’s Office of attempting to interfere in the prosecution of Montréal-based engineering firm SNC-Lavalin.

The report alleges the PMO tried to pressure former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to force the public prosecutor to settle, which is what SNC-Lavalin wants. When she refused, she was demoted to a less significant cabinet role.

The Prime Minister’s Office denies the allegations, and Wilson-Raybould is refusing to comment.

The ongoing case involves millions of dollars in alleged bribes to Libyan officials—including $160 million to Saadi Gaddafi. This is just one of several instances where SNC-Lavalin or its executives have faced prosecution for corruption, typically revolving around bribes.

The firm’s former CEO just last week pleaded guilty on a multimillion dollar bribery scheme involving a $1.3 billion contract for a Montréal superhospital.

Another key executive illegally funnelled a six-figure sum to the federal Liberals.

Last May, former SNC-Lavalin vice-president Normand Morin was charged with engineering a scheme to illegally donate more than $100,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada, as well as Liberal riding associations and leadership candidates.

These donations took place over a period of seven years, during which $8,000 was given to Conservatives through the same scheme.

Employees would donate in their names, but the company would cover the donation through reimbursements for “false refunds for personal expenses or payment of fictitious bonuses.” Corporate contributions have been illegal in Canada since 2006.

Despite the scale and significance of the scam, Morin was required to pay only $2,000 as punishment after pleading guilty in November. The media didn’t report on his plea until last month.

SNC-Lavalin admitted there were other executives involved, though they were never publicly identified and Morin was the only one charged.

Though this didn’t stop SNC-Lavalin from having high-level access to Justin Trudeau’s office.

Since 2017, the company’s representatives have met with senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office—including Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts—on 14 occasions, purportedly to lobby for “justice,” which seems to be an odd topic for an engineering firm.

For optics alone, the PMO shouldn’t have been taking meetings with representatives of a company facing ongoing criminal prosecution.

I’m inclined to side with NDP member of parliament Charlie Angus in saying SNC-Lavalin shouldn’t even have access to federal contracts, given its track record of corruption.

If the Globe report is true, thank goodness Wilson-Raybould had the moral grounding to say no, despite it coming at a personal cost.

It’s clear the ties between the Liberals and SNC-Lavalin run deep.