It’s a long and learned drop from the lofty debates of the Supreme Court to the average Albertan’s wallet.

But here’s the practical thing: Thursday’s ruling that climate change is a matter of “national concern,” and thus gives wide powers on carbon pricing to Ottawa, is not going to cost you much, if anything.

Albertans now pay the federal carbon tax, which replaced the NDP carbon tax, which the UCP abolished, which caused Ottawa to impose the federal tax, which Alberta challenged in court . . .

Gulp for air here and remind yourself that you love Canada.

Last December, Ottawa announced Climate Action Incentive payments for people who live in the four provinces that, by rebelling against the federal carbon price, ensured that their residents are the only Canadians paying it.

Upon filing 2020 income tax returns, families of four will get a rebate of $600 in Ontario, $720 in Manitoba, $1,000 in Saskatchewan and $981 in Alberta.

(The amounts are higher in Alberta and Saskatchewan because the Prairies are big and Ottawa officials think we all drive 500 kilometres to work.)

The federal Liberals assert that most people will receive more in rebates than they will ever pay in carbon tax. The climate, highly susceptible to this logic, will improve itself accordingly.

With Thursday’s ruling, the federal carbon tax officially became entrenched in all four rebel provinces. A

Supreme Court decision

can’t be challenged.

This led Premier Jason Kenney, the fiercest provincial opponent of the tax, to say something almost good about it.

The federal tax was

at least better than the NDP's, he said

, because most of it will actually be returned to the citizens by Ottawa, whereas the NDP used much of the take for “pet projects” such as energy efficient toilets and light bulbs.

Imagine the hilarity in Ottawa, as officials watch the Alberta NDP and UCP debate whose carbon tax is best.

There will now be some kind of provincial plan in Alberta, because the feds have always said that pricing schemes equivalent to their carbon tax will be approved.

Kenney could continue with the federal tax, of course, but that would seem unlikely after all rhetoric about the “job-killing tax.”

So, what does he do?

The best dodge by far is cap and trade, which allows sectors to trade carbon credits back and forth, even internationally.

Quebec has cap and trade open to the whole economy, including individuals. Kenney has complained that it’s unfair, because it effectively imposes a lower price in Quebec than the federal tax.

Ontario had cap and trade under the former Liberal government. But PC Premier Doug Ford abolished it after he was elected, thus ensuring a fight with Ottawa over the carbon tax, which in turn meant his people have to pay it.

Nova Scotia also uses cap and trade. “The program will add about one cent per litre to the price of gas, compared with about 11 cents per litre by 2022 under the federal approach,” says the government.

Provinces that went along with Ottawa’s guideline, choosing to create or continue with their own carbon schemes, kept much more control over both policy and money.

The provinces that chose to fight the federal plan lost control, spent bundles in court, and actually subjected their people to the federal tax.

After the court ruling, Ottawa has full control of carbon pricing because it’s deemed a national concern.

Some experts say that’s as far as it goes — the ruling is about the carbon price, nothing else.

But the genuine worry, given federal tendencies, is that Ottawa will press the court’s recognition of climate crisis into related areas such as energy production.

Kenney says Thursday’s ruling twisted the Constitution dangerously to give Ottawa almost unlimited control.

He could be right. But it only happened because the rebels rolled the dice in court.

And all along, the fight has been over a carbon tax that gives the money back.

Don Braid's column appears regularly in the Herald

dbraid@postmedia.com

Twitter:

@DonBraid

Facebook:

Don Braid Politics

Premier Jason Kenney slammed the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling upholding the federal carbon tax on Thursday, saying it “erodes provincial jurisdiction and undermines our constitutional federal system,” while he left the door open to a potential made-in-Alberta levy.

Kenney said Alberta would consider a multitude of options in response to the split-decision by Canada’s highest court, which

ruled the federal carbon pricing law is constitutional

.

“We are going to consult with Albertans and also talk to our allied provinces to determine the best way forward to protect jobs and the economy in Alberta, to minimize the costs of any future policies on this province,” Kenney said.

“One thing Albertans can be sure of is we are not going to use this, the excuse of this decision or the federal carbon tax, to squeeze more money for the government out of Albertans.”

But asked if a provincial carbon levy could be back on the table to keep those dollars in Alberta, after the UCP government repealed the former NDP government’s tax following the 2019 election, Kenney said his government would “consider all options” and seek input from Albertans.

“Two-thirds of Albertans continue to oppose a carbon tax and that’s why we repealed the NDP carbon tax,” the premier said. “While I don’t like the federal carbon tax, the truth is that it is, in one sense at least, less costly to Albertans than the Alberta NDP carbon tax because that was partly designed to squeeze money out of taxpayers to spend on NDP pet projects.”

University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe said it’s time for the province to think about taking back control of carbon tax revenues, rather than seeing those funds flow to Ottawa through the federal backstop program.

“Continually rejecting the very idea of carbon taxes is getting increasingly difficult for the government,” Tombe said.

“The carbon tax is here to stay and right now the federal government determines what to do with the revenues. The province might have other ideas; changing tax rates, providing larger rural rebates, supporting agriculture in a different way, for example, or using it to help address the truly massive fiscal challenge that we face in this province.”

Related

• Supreme Court says federal carbon tax is constitutional
• Federal carbon tax could cost Alberta 30,000 jobs: Study
• What’s at stake when Supreme Court releases its federal carbon tax decision on Thursday
• Majority of Albertans reject provincial sales tax: poll
• Varcoe: Alberta shoots for moon with ‘no-brainer’ $30B pitch to Ottawa for carbon capture
• ‘I’m the leader, I’m in charge’: O’Toole dismisses Conservative vote on climate change

Around 60 per cent of revenues from the previous NDP program were used to fund environmental initiatives, such as Energy Efficiency Alberta, or subsidies to create technology development, said Tombe.

He said the NDP provided 40 per cent of carbon tax revenues in rebates to low- and middle-income households, based on their income levels. The federal rebate, meanwhile, is more universal, with adjustments based only on family size and whether recipients live in rural or urban communities.

Tombe said the “overwhelming majority” of low-income families don’t face carbon tax costs higher than the rebate value.

“It’s not something that’s just a tax grab. It’s much more complex than that,” he said.

“Ignoring the rebates is to ignore half the policy.”

Critics say UCP wasted time at courts

Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt called Thursday’s decision yet another loss for Kenney’s fight-back strategy.

“He is in a difficult position. What does he do next?” Bratt said, noting Kenney vowed during the 2019 election campaign that any reintroduction of a carbon tax would require a referendum.

“So how does Kenney then bring in an Alberta plan, even if it’s very similar to what the backstop is, in the absence of a referendum? I think that’s got to be part of their calculation here.”

The onus at the courts was on the federal government to prove this was an issue of national concern, rather than leaving it to individual provinces. Kenney said he’s concerned the decision opens the door “to a potentially unlimited exercise of the federal reserve powers over areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.”

“I can’t believe that the Supreme Court actually means for that to be a new principle of Canadian constitutional law,” Kenney said during a Thursday news conference.

“The best we can hope for is that the Supreme Court has invented a one-time-only carbon pricing exception to the constitutional order.”

The premier said the government would continue supporting efforts of major Alberta energy producers to achieve their goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

NDP Leader Rachel Notley said Kenney’s decision to fight the federal carbon tax caused “two years of damage to Alberta’s reputation with global investors.”

“Instead of getting Albertans back to work, he gave away our control over a made-in-Alberta climate response plan,” the Opposition leader said.

“He has been distracted for two years with this particular battle, which many people suggested he was not likely to win. By politicizing the work to reduce our emissions and support our energy sector . . . he delayed the work that was inevitable.”

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi also questioned whether the court battle was an effective use of taxpayer dollars. He said the result was a “clear” signal that Ottawa was within its rights to impose the levy.

“When this (court challenge) was launched, pretty much every constitutional lawyer that was quoted said this has no chance of success,” Nenshi said.

Businesses decry ruling, but others say it's a positive step to address climate change

Annie Dormuth of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” for small businesses across Alberta, as well as those in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

“We’ve been long calling for the federal government to not impose additional cost increases on small business, especially during this time when the recovery of small businesses will take a very long time,” said Dormuth, the CFIB’s director of provincial affairs for Alberta.

“Under the drop of revenues that they have seen throughout the entire pandemic here, (they) really can’t afford to stomach any types of cost increases.”

Dormuth said the Alberta government has an opportunity to create a “fairer approach” than the federal system, which hasn’t struck the right balance for small business. She said those companies contribute nearly 50 per cent of carbon tax revenues, but only receive around seven per cent back in the form of grants and rebates, according to the CFIB’s research.

But the federal government’s carbon pricing scheme is an effective way to address climate change, the “existential threat of our time,” according to Progress Alberta, the sole Alberta-based intervenor that participated in the court challenge.

The group’s lawyer, Avnish Nanda, said the decision was good news for “Albertans who care about these issues.”

“There are millions of Albertans who look upon a decision like this and feel that their views and their interests are reflected. Hopefully it will push both levels of government together to address this issue in a pragmatic and effective manner,” Nanda said.

“There needs to be a flexible, regulatory regime where if one level of government fails to pick up the slack on this issue, then the other level of government can come in and do that work.”

shudes@postmedia.com

Twitter:

@SammyHudes

As Alberta doctors vote on a new master agreement that could put an end to a bitter, year-long battle with the province, Health Minister Tyler Shandro sent an open letter extending an olive branch to physicians.

In the letter, obtained by Postmedia, Shandro walked back

comments made earlier this month in the legislature

 when he said “there was no fight with the Alberta Medical Association,” despite an acrimonious and public dispute that began in February 2020 when the province unilaterally

tore up the existing contract with doctors

.

“In coverage of the debate, it was suggested that I was attempting to rewrite the history of the last year,” Shandro wrote.

“To be frank, I did not choose my words carefully. The next day, I wrote to AMA President, Dr. Paul Boucher, to express my regrets and assure him that my comments were in no way meant to diminish the concerns and the frustrations expressed by physicians over the past year.”

The contrite tone carried through the rest of the letter, which detailed a meeting with Pincher Creek physician Dr. Samantha Myhr,

a vocal critic of the province

throughout the dispute, taken “in the spirit of finding common ground.”

Myhr could not be immediately reached Thursday and the AMA declined a request for comment, citing the ongoing vote for the new agreement.

Shandro ended the letter by saying he wishes to rebuild trust with doctors, acknowledging that won’t happen overnight.

“I want to leave the rhetoric behind and rebuild trust,” the letter read. “I fully acknowledge how challenging this last year has been for physicians. I truly want to move forward together, for the sake of patients and all Albertans.”

The letter follows comments Shandro made to the house during question period Monday, saying the attempt to change how doctors bill for extended visits

was a mistake

and pledging no such changes will be made.

The minister’s apologetic nature this week could reflect a desire to make the

tentative deal with doctors reached last month

a reality, University of Calgary health law professor Lorian Hardcastle suggested.

“It seems to me like Minister Shandro is probably trying to smooth things over and to be a bit more conciliatory in light of the fact that the vote is about a week away on the AMA agreement,” Hardcastle said.

“He wants this matter done with, he wants the contract signed, and that’s probably what motivated the letter.”

The vote on whether to ratify the new agreement is currently open among the AMA’s 11,000 members. Voting will end March 30, with results expected soon after.

The letter probably won’t move the needle in the vote, in part because many doctors have likely already cast their ballots but also because it doesn’t erase the past year of hard feelings, Hardcastle said.

“I think people have very polarizing views on the AMA agreement, but I think even those who are planning on voting yes, many of them aren’t voting yes because they trust or like Minister Shandro,” she said. “They’re voting yes because some of them want this over with, some of them are concerned there may be punitive action if they don’t sign the agreement.”

Neither the province nor the AMA has released details of the tentative agreement.

But earlier this week, Calgary Herald columnist Don Braid

published some information

about the four-year deal.

The contract would set a hard budget cap on physician spending at $4.571 billion, rather than implement a rate-based system. That would be flat for two years, then increase by one per cent each of the last two years.

It would restore funding to physician supports, including maternity leave, medical liability insurance and the physician and family support program.

There are no provisions for binding, third-party arbitration included.

jherring@postmedia.com

Twitter:

@jasonfherring

Canada’s vaccine supply depends entirely on “the kindness of strangers,” to misuse the great line from the Tennessee Williams play.

There is no single COVID-19 vaccine dose that isn’t made and shipped from somewhere else, mostly from Europe. And vaccine nationalism is intensifying there.

On Thursday, the European Union is expected to decide on new measures that could potentially block exports.

Canada is not on the E.U. list of more than 100 countries officially exempted from export bans. This doesn’t mean Canada will be deprived, but certainly suggests it’s possible.

The drift to protectionism isn’t new. The first European export restrictions took effect in January.

But the latest move is an escalation, clearly based on public anger at the surprisingly weak vaccine rollout in many E.U. countries.

The U.K. is the main target. With post-Brexit grievances still fresh, the Europeans are furious that Britain hasn’t sent a single dose across the Channel but has received 10 million from Europe.

As if to rub it in, the U.K. has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, far ahead of any E.U. country.

There’s a risk that if bans get rolling they will spread and affect shipments to Canada — just as the provincial vaccination plans are ramping up with decent supplies of Pfizer and Moderna doses.

On Wednesday, Health Minister Tyler Shandro boasted that 500,000 Albertans have received at least one dose.

“More than 146,400 doses were administered during the past week, including more than 27,600 reported on March 21 alone,” he said.

This is real progress. But it must continue. Alberta now has more cases of the highly infectious variant strain than any other province. We had 2,110 such cases Wednesday. Ontario, with nearly four times our population, recorded 1,486.

The only way out is mass vaccination, as quickly as possible.

Ottawa says it has assurances that shipments to Canada, which mainly come from Moderna and Pfizer European facilities, will not be affected by the latest E.U. rule changes.

Similarly, the Alberta government has no information that suggests a sudden shut-off. But we heard that before, and then Pfizer suddenly cut deliveries in January to retool its plant in Belgium.

By maddening irony, our best hope for continuing supply may be Canada’s complete dependence, as well as our low vaccination rates.

The E.U. rules are aimed at exports to countries that already have high vaccination success as well as capacity to produce vaccine, but ship few or no doses to the E.U.

Canada has no production capacity and therefore no way to export, unless we give away supply we buy elsewhere.

Our vaccination rates are also well down the international lists.

Several websites compile vaccination comparisons based on national statistics. You have to wonder if some nations aren’t stretching their success in order to look good at home.

But there’s no doubt that the U.S. and U.K. are going extremely well.

The New York Times tracker

shows that the U.K. has vaccinated 43 per cent of the population once, although only 3.6 per cent have received two shots.

The U.S. has vaccinated 25 per cent once, and 14 per cent are fully inoculated.

Both nations far outstrip major E.U. countries. In France, the count is 9.5 per cent with one shot and 3.7 per cent with two. In Germany, it’s 9.3 per cent and 4.1 per cent.

Belgium, where Canada’s Pfizer doses are produced, has vaccinated 8.8 per cent of the population once, and 3.9 per cent twice.

Canada is squarely in the mediocre middle. We’ve vaccinated 9.7 per cent once, and only 1.7 per cent twice.

Whatever emotions Canada provokes in Europe, envy isn’t one of them.

National mediocrity may be the very thing that ensures the kindness of strangers, as long as we keep paying them. It’s not the best feeling.

Don Braid's column appears regularly in the Herald

dbraid@postmedia.com

Twitter:

@DonBraid

Facebook:

Don Braid Politics