First Nations celebrate their court victory.

The Title and Location of the Court Decision.

Introduction

You can read a much shorter version of this post, published on October 10, 2018 by the CD Howe Institute, here:

CD Howe Institute.

On August 30, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) set aside the federal Cabinet’s approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project. One of its two reasons for doing so was its finding that the Crown’s consultation with several First Nations (FNs) about the proposed projects had been inadequate.  The court criticized the government officials doing the consulting for seeing their roles as largely note-taking and communicating FNs’ concerns to the Cabinet, rather than engaging in a responsive two-way dialogue to “grapple with” their concerns.  To approve TMX again, the Crown will have to comply with the court’s requirement for further consultation. With respect, I think the court was wrong.  

A number of FN chiefs have made public statements that the government needs their permission to proceed with the pipeline, which permission they will deny.  That is incorrect. The SCC has held that the Crown’s duty of consultation does not give FNs a veto over project approval. Yet this FCA decision (as well as a similar FCA decision in the earlier Northern Gateway Pipeline case) has given FNs an effective veto.  The two decisions have now created two bad precedents. Continue reading “Trans Mountain Appeal Part 2:  The Crown’s Duty to Consult First Nations”

Continue reading “Ontario’s Doomed Legal Challenge to Ottawa’s Carbon Tax”

Carbon dioxide emissions will become a scarce and valuable commodity in Canada soon. Who will be permitted to emit how much CO2? The answer should not depend upon whether someone has been emitting for a long time or  is just starting a new facility.  I have covered this topic in a recent publication of the C.D. Howe Institute that you can read here:

https://www.cdhowe.org/intelligence-memos/andrew-roman-are-old-polluters-better-new-polluters

 Note: I took this shark’s photo at the Ripley’s Canada Aquarium in Toronto.

According to an August 2017 study by the Fraser Institute Canadians pay, on average, more in taxes than for the basic necessities of life.  A typical Canadian household used 37 per cent of its income on basic necessities but 42.5 per cent of its income in taxes.  (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/taxes-the-average-canadian-familys-largest-expense)

An average Canadian family with an income of about $83,000 paid $31,000 for basic necessities: housing (rent and mortgage payments), food and clothing, while  paying roughly $35,000 in taxes last year.  (That includes federal, provincial and local taxes, including income, payroll, sales and property taxes.)

Canadians’ tax bill has risen by over 2,000 per cent since 1961, while the Consumer Price Index rose by only 718 per cent over the period, the report said.  Thus, taxes have increased by around 2.8 times as much the general cost of living.

This rate of escalation in the tax share of income cannot go on indefinitely.  All levels of government will have to put tighter limits on their spending, sooner rather than later.  However, that day can be put off for a few more years by the federal government distracting the voting public from government spending increases by complaining that some income groups are not paying their “fair share”.

Is anyone not paying their fair share? Continue reading “Are Government Sharks Eating Too Much of Your Income in Taxes?”