FELDSTED: Omitted from assessment by the majority is whether or not carbon emission reductions are in the national interest

The Saskatchewan Appeal Court ruling on the carbon tax was disappointing, but unsurprising.

In my opinion, the federal government is determination to push through a new tax on Canadians irrespective of the economic and social fallout.

There is a sharp contrast between the approaches and assessments of the majority and minority views in this split decision. Writing for the majority, Richards, C.J.S. states:

“Canada contends it should be recognized, under the national concern branch, as having jurisdiction over “the cumulative dimensions of GHG emissions”. This approach must be rejected because it would allow Parliament to intrude so deeply into areas of provincial authority that the balance of federalism would be upset. Further, it would hamper and limit provincial efforts to deal with GHG emissions.”

“However, Parliament does have authority over a narrower POGG subject matter – the establishment of minimum national standards of price stringency for GHG emissions. This jurisdiction has the singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility required by the law. It also has a limited impact on the balance of federalism and leaves provinces broad scope to legislate in the GHG area. The Act is constitutionally valid because its essential character falls within the scope of this POGG authority.”

Writing for the minority, Ottenbreit, J.A. states:

“Parliament and the Provincial legislatures are sovereign within their own heads of power or spheres of jurisdiction. Canadian federalism enshrines the principle of autonomy at each level of government so as to permit independent development and promotion of local and national political and policy priorities within the enumerated heads of power. 

The object of the Constitution Act, 1867 was not to “weld the provinces into one, nor to subordinate Provincial Governments to a central authority” (Re The Initiative and Referendum Act, [1919] AC 935 (PC) at 942).”

The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Omitted from assessment by the majority is whether or not carbon emission reductions are in the national interest. Concerns over anthropogenic carbon emissions are driven by international treaty. Many nations are excluded from compliance and others have withdrawn support or do not support the Paris Agreement.

Stating that carbon emission goals are in Canada’s national interest is a dubious claim at best.

The issue at hand is whether the federal government can use its participation in an international treaty as a lever to alter the balance of powers between the federal and provincial governments.

The essence of Canadian sovereignty over her internal affairs is on the table, and these issues are far from resolved.  

John Feldsted

Political Consultant & Strategist

Winnipeg, Manitoba