Carbon tax battle likely to haunt politics for a while
With court case about to begin, both sides settle in for long fight
Saskatchewan’s justice minister predicts the carbon tax battle with the feds is certain to go to the Supreme Court, as both sides prepare for a constitutional reference case starting Wednesday.
For Justice Minister and Attorney General Don Morgan, challenging the constitutionality of Ottawa’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is “the right thing to do.” He expects the ruling of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will be looked at closely by other provinces in what’s become a Pan-canadian fight over carbon pricing.
But he admits it’s unlikely to be the final word.
“There’s no doubt, no matter what happens in the outcome at the provincial Court of Appeal, it will end up at the Supreme Court in Ottawa,” Morgan said on Tuesday.
Either Saskatchewan or Canada have the right to apply to the nation’s top court if they’re dissatisfied with the outcome of this week’s hearing.
Federal Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Tuesday that it’s “difficult to speculate” on whether the issue will make it to the Supreme Court, but acknowledged that “whoever does not succeed will no doubt weigh their position very carefully.”
He said Ottawa expects to be successful with its “sound and solid” argument.
The stakes are high for both sides. The federal government’s signature environmental policy — an escalating price on carbon emissions applied to fuel and an output based levy for heavy emitters — could stand or fall with the ultimate judicial outcome.
“Winning a court proceeding, or prevailing with your argument, it’s not a sporting contest, but prevailing with your argument is important,” Goodale said.
For Morgan, the province is fighting on both legal and political ground. He said it’s vital to draw a line between federal and provincial areas of jurisdictions. Ottawa believes it can impose a carbon tax under its authority to enact laws on issues of “national concern.”
Morgan acknowledged on Tuesday that climate change is a national concern.
But he said it’s illogical for a tax to be applied unevenly based on what the federal government thinks of provincial climate plans.
“It’s not constitutional to have a tax rate different from province to province …,” he said. “Our goal is to establish a legal precedent that will support that.”
He repeated the province’s oft-stated warnings that the tax will hit Saskatchewan hard. That view plays well in many corners of a resource-rich province like Saskatchewan, making it a good fight to pick with Ottawa.
“Politically, it’s important for the message to the people of our province that we are sticking up for them that this is something that is fundamentally important to us as an oil-producing, energy-exporting province, and we want to see that respected all the way across Canada,” Morgan said.
If the case winds up at the Supreme Court, it could remain a live debate in the run-up to federal and provincial elections in 2019 and 2020. But Morgan said he’s not thinking of it as a campaign issue.
Part of the federal plan, an output-based levy targeting heavy emitters, is already in effect. A further levy on fuels like gasoline and diesel will follow in April.
The reference case, which runs Wednesday and Thursday, will see 18 submissions from governments, environmental organizations and other interested groups over the constitutionality of the tax. One consortium of largely local interveners is blasting the way they believe Saskatchewan is playing politics with a life-and-death threat.
“They’re presenting it as a constitutional issue. To me that is just a smokescreen,” said Mark Bigland-pritchard of Climate Justice Saskatoon.
He pointed out the province is taking a different position in another reference case, this one in British Columbia, where Saskatchewan is sticking up for federal rights to build pipelines.
“To me this is hypocrisy on the part of the Saskatchewan government,” he said.
At the same conference, Jim Elliott of the Regina chapter of the Council of Canadians said he’d like to hear the NDP talk more about carbon pricing.
“I haven’t necessarily seen that much with respect from the opposition as to what they’re doing,” he said, adding it’s “hard to tell” how much of an issue they’ll make of it as an election looms.
NDP Leader Ryan Meili addressed that Tuesday, saying there’s still work ahead to make sure the party’s environmental plan is “done right.”
He lamented that both the province and the feds are taking an “allor-nothing approach” in the courts when they should be hashing out a climate policy that works for Saskatchewan. He said Ottawa’s backstop carbon price doesn’t do that. He has “serious concerns” about the impact it would have on “regular folks.”
For Meili, a price on pollution is “a reasonable thing.” But when directly questioned about whether the NDP would support a tax on fuels like gasoline and diesel, Meili did not commit one way or the other.
“There’s a real problem with an economywide carbon tax on all goods,” he said. “There’s a real problem on the public acceptance of that. There’s a real problem with the potential economic risks of that. We haven’t had the discussion about what would be the best plan for Saskatchewan. That’s what we need to have.”
Meili said there’s a need to discuss other options, including “ways of offsetting the price.” But that’s already in the federal plan, which includes rebate cheques.
He faulted the federal government for calling its opponents climate deniers, and blasted the Saskatchewan Party for ruling out any carbon pricing scheme. He said narrow, polarized approaches hinder the discussion.
Cameras are being allowed in the courtroom for the hearing Wednesday and Thursday. A pooled feed will stream on the Saskatoon Starphoenix Youtube page, Regina Leader-post and Saskatoon Starphoenix Facebook pages, as well as the apps and websites for both.
Cameras have rarely been allowed in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, including the recent hearing for David Woods.
Politically, it’s important for the message to the people of our province that we are sticking up for them.