Juno News - April 16, 2019


Giving taxpayers a voice at the Carbon Tax Trial - Andrew Lawton with Christine Van Geyn


Episode Stats

Length

5 minutes

Words per Minute

168.49184

Word Count

877

Sentence Count

37


Summary

The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing the case of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation v. Ontario on whether or not the government's proposed carbon tax is a tax in principle and in pith and substance. In this episode, I speak with Canadian Taxpayer's Federation Director Christine Van Gein about her organization's position on the matter.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Out front of Osgoode Hall where the week-long constitutional reference is taking place.
00:00:10.560 One of the interveners in this case is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation,
00:00:14.320 represented at least in part by lawyer Christine Van Gein,
00:00:17.820 with whom I've had the pleasure of chatting on many occasions,
00:00:20.080 but never in this attire.
00:00:21.760 So thanks very much for taking the time.
00:00:23.400 Yeah, thanks for having me.
00:00:24.560 So really in a nutshell here,
00:00:26.420 I know interveners haven't been given a huge amount of time,
00:00:28.640 but what is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's approach to this question?
00:00:32.860 Yeah, so we've been given about 10 minutes,
00:00:34.340 and we'll be making our arguments on Wednesday.
00:00:36.540 We're adopting everything that the Ontario Attorney-General has said,
00:00:40.520 and we're going to be expanding upon their argument about whether or not this is a tax.
00:00:45.060 We're arguing that it is a tax in pits and substance,
00:00:48.680 but it's not properly enacted because it's not enacted explicitly.
00:00:53.400 Taxes need to be enacted explicitly by Parliament.
00:00:56.380 This is really enacted sort of as a skeleton regime with all of the details,
00:01:02.040 when it applies, who it applies to, and how much it applies.
00:01:06.580 That's all filled in by regulation instead of enacted explicitly by Parliament.
00:01:12.480 So it's neither a valid tax, nor is it a regulatory charge.
00:01:17.740 And we're concerned for taxpayers because if you give the federal government the power
00:01:21.800 to enact things that are essentially taxes,
00:01:25.720 but they don't need to comply with constitutional requirements,
00:01:29.320 and the government can just call them regulatory charges,
00:01:32.660 that's going to be a big problem in the future,
00:01:34.720 and we shouldn't empower the federal government that way.
00:01:37.140 If the federal government has the authority to levy taxes and to levy regulatory charges,
00:01:42.500 why does that distinction matter here, if the government has the ability to do it?
00:01:46.820 Because they need to do it properly.
00:01:48.540 That's what our constitution requires.
00:01:50.740 And we're going to be arguing on Wednesday
00:01:52.260 that they haven't met those constitutional requirements.
00:01:55.180 If you want to do something, you need to comply with the constitution.
00:01:57.860 That's what it's there for.
00:01:59.140 And we're proud to be here to stand up for taxpayers and say that they deserve that.
00:02:03.760 One of the things that came up when Ontario was delivering its opening arguments
00:02:07.600 is this idea that the carbon tax is currently put forward in the legislation
00:02:12.000 tends to occupy this twilight zone where,
00:02:14.880 and there was actually an exchange with the associate chief justice about this,
00:02:17.720 it's not really a tax in the eyes of the law,
00:02:20.240 it's not really a regulatory charge.
00:02:22.320 My question as someone who's not a lawyer coming into this
00:02:25.000 is for Canadians that distinction is not particularly relevant.
00:02:29.520 I mean that idea of a tax in practice not being a tax in law
00:02:33.240 seems like a confusing one for the people that are paying for it.
00:02:35.940 Yeah, so I think if you talk to anyone who's filling up their car at a gas station,
00:02:39.880 they're going to say this feels like a tax.
00:02:42.760 And that's what we mean when we use the term in pith and substance.
00:02:46.600 This is something that it acts like a tax, it feels like a tax, it is a tax.
00:02:51.840 And the thing that matters if the government's going to impose a tax
00:02:55.360 is that they impose it in a way that meets the constitutional requirements
00:02:59.200 set out in our constitution.
00:03:01.740 So the government needs to comply with that,
00:03:04.440 and that's what we're asking for.
00:03:05.940 The nightmare scenario, let's say that the court rules on Ontario's side
00:03:10.460 and ultimately on your side on this,
00:03:12.440 could the federal government reintroduce the identical legislation
00:03:15.300 but call it a tax and it would be in the clear?
00:03:18.020 Yeah, if they were explicit in how they enacted this,
00:03:21.040 if they enacted a proper taxing power,
00:03:23.620 then it could be, depending on what they did,
00:03:26.880 I mean it's hard to comment on hypothetical legislation,
00:03:29.220 but if they did do things properly,
00:03:32.220 it would be a different story.
00:03:33.320 The thing is, in this legislation, they haven't.
00:03:36.120 And that I think is so central to what you said earlier about the fairness to taxpayers here,
00:03:40.580 is that if you are going to put a tax on people,
00:03:43.120 you need to be a lot more forthright about it.
00:03:45.080 Yeah, we call it taxation only with representation, right?
00:03:48.040 It's a very fundamental principle of our constitution.
00:03:50.040 So I know it's not advantageous to necessarily predict how the week is likely to unfold,
00:03:56.320 but I know that some of the interveners have put forward their own positions on this,
00:04:01.240 as you have,
00:04:01.960 but their perspective is more about the urgency of climate action
00:04:05.720 and not about the constitutionality of it.
00:04:08.680 Are those taken into consideration in a court case like this?
00:04:12.320 I mean, those seem to be policy issues and policy questions
00:04:16.500 that are not necessarily legal issues,
00:04:19.440 but they're couched in legal terms.
00:04:22.420 In my view, this is really a question of jurisdiction and constitutionality.
00:04:28.220 When we get into kind of unwritten principles,
00:04:31.220 which some of the interveners are arguing,
00:04:33.120 you're on a lot shakier ground.
00:04:35.560 Ontario Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Christine Van Gein,
00:04:38.940 thanks for your work and thanks for your time.
00:04:40.440 Thank you.
00:04:42.320 Thank you.