3 ms·

At the macro-level, yes. But aren't all taxes the re-distribution (gathering and disbursement) regardless of where the piles of money end up? At the micro/perso

At the macro-level, yes. But aren't all taxes the re-distribution (gathering and disbursement) regardless of where the piles of money end up? At the micro/personal-level, it'd sure feel like a tax to me. The nuance here is Canada's constitution offers a framework to make a technical distinction argument and say (i) the federal Canadian govt. (ii) can impose this "tax" because it's a "regulatory scheme" via a catch-all authority provision outside its enumerated powers.

throw0101a 5y ago
> (ii) can impose this "tax" because it's a "regulatory scheme" via a catch-all authority provision outside its enumerated powers. The SCC ruled that it was under the federal government's enumerated powers, or rather the "peace, order, and good government" (POGG) provision: > Notably, the POGG power is a little different from the other subject matters listed under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, because it is a residual power, meaning that it allows the federal government to legislate over any subject that is not otherwise assigned to the federal or provincial governments under sections 91 and 92. To sort out exactly what this means, the courts have identified three possible uses of the POGG power, which are referred to as the three branches of POGG. They are: the emergency branch, the gap branch, and the national concern branch.[8] * https://elc.ab.ca/i-read-the-carbon-tax-decision-so-you-dont-have-to-a-detailed-summary-of-the-main-issues/ https://elc.ab.ca/i-read-the-carbon-tax-decision-so-you-dont... Different legal and constitutional traditions/fraem works may work differently. (Tautology is tautological…)
- caminante 5y ago
  > The SCC ruled that it was under the federal government's enumerated powers To clarify, I said the POGG was the catch-all provision. This is semantics and we directionally agree, but I wouldn't characterize the POGG as an "enumerated power". If the CA constitution explicitly said the CA federal govt. has the ability to place a federal carbon tax, then that'd be an enumerated power. Due to a lack of an enumerated federal carbon tax power, advocates had to rely on the [implied power from the] "catch all" POGG provision. Your article goes into why it's not an enumerated power (and consistent with my interpretation): > Very briefly, the federal and provincial governments get their power to pass legislation from sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 respectively.[7] These two sections list a bunch of subject matters and, essentially, each government can only pass legislation dealing with the subjects that it has been assigned. This is why the provinces deal with health care and education, whereas the federal government deals with the criminal law and the military. All of your articles were interesting. Thank you. edit: Checking wikipedia about the context of Canada's POGG provision[0], there's more explanation as to why POGG's not an enumerated power, but this is all semantics and above my intellect. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_government#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_governm...

throw0101a 5y ago

> (ii) can impose this "tax" because it's a "regulatory scheme" via a catch-all authority provision outside its enumerated powers. The SCC ruled that it was under the federal government's enumerated powers, or rather the "peace, order, and good government" (POGG) provision: > Notably, the POGG power is a little different from the other subject matters listed under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, because it is a residual power, meaning that it allows the federal government to legislate over any subject that is not otherwise assigned to the federal or provincial governments under sections 91 and 92. To sort out exactly what this means, the courts have identified three possible uses of the POGG power, which are referred to as the three branches of POGG. They are: the emergency branch, the gap branch, and the national concern branch.[8] * https://elc.ab.ca/i-read-the-carbon-tax-decision-so-you-dont-have-to-a-detailed-summary-of-the-main-issues/ https://elc.ab.ca/i-read-the-carbon-tax-decision-so-you-dont... Different legal and constitutional traditions/fraem works may work differently. (Tautology is tautological…)

caminante 5y ago
> The SCC ruled that it was under the federal government's enumerated powers To clarify, I said the POGG was the catch-all provision. This is semantics and we directionally agree, but I wouldn't characterize the POGG as an "enumerated power". If the CA constitution explicitly said the CA federal govt. has the ability to place a federal carbon tax, then that'd be an enumerated power. Due to a lack of an enumerated federal carbon tax power, advocates had to rely on the [implied power from the] "catch all" POGG provision. Your article goes into why it's not an enumerated power (and consistent with my interpretation): > Very briefly, the federal and provincial governments get their power to pass legislation from sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 respectively.[7] These two sections list a bunch of subject matters and, essentially, each government can only pass legislation dealing with the subjects that it has been assigned. This is why the provinces deal with health care and education, whereas the federal government deals with the criminal law and the military. All of your articles were interesting. Thank you. edit: Checking wikipedia about the context of Canada's POGG provision[0], there's more explanation as to why POGG's not an enumerated power, but this is all semantics and above my intellect. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_government#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_governm...