court of appeal: sask. government loses carbon tax challenge - carbon dioxide absorbent
The following is a further understanding of the appeals court's carbon tax ruling and some knowledge of what is going on next.
The provincial government is ready to accept its carbon emissions.
The Supreme Court of Canada's tax struggle, which was announced on Friday by the Court of Appeal that the federal government had the right to impose a carbon tax on a particular province.
Three of the five judges presided over twice.
According to a hearing held in Regina this month, support the federal government.
Page decision released on Friday.
Take a closer look at this decision and what will happen next.
The key to a big problem reference case is in the middle
February was the federal government's greenhouse gas pollution pricing bill to parliament in March 28, 2018.
Three months later, the fuel tax came into effect on April 1, 2019.
The question before the court of appeal is, "is this bill a full or partial violation of the Constitution?
"The only question facing the court is whether Parliament has the constitutional power to enact the act.
The question is not whether greenhouse gas pricing should be adopted or whether the bill is valid or fair.
These questions will be answered by Parliament and the provincial legislature, not by the courts . "
The federal government announced
Canadian carbon pollution pricing method
Saskatchewan did not adopt it-October 2016.
It proposes a general
Canada's "benchmark" for carbon pricing, carbon prices rose $10 a year in 2022 to a maximum of $50 per ton.
Judge Robert Richards of PlayersChief concluded that "the bill falls under the legislative authority of Parliament.
It is not a violation of the Constitution in whole or in part.
Judge Georgina Jackson and judge Lien Swan agreed.
Two judges, Ralph Ottenbreit and Neal Caldwell, found that federal carbon pricing was not constitutional.
This was after the court heard the debate of different groups. Some (
Including the BC government)
Support the federal government.
Other countries, such as the province of SA, Ontario, New Brunswick and the newly elected governing Party of Alberta (
Against carbon pricing.
Intervenors include SaskPower and SaskEnergy, Saskatchewan Provincial Association of Agricultural Producers, First Nations of the Athabasca Chipewyan, First Nations congress, climate justice Saskatoon, Council of International Cooperation of the province of SA, electric vehicle club of the province of SA, etc.
The majority ruled that the provincial government claimed that the bill was invalid because the provincial council had decided the province in which it operated and violated the principle of federalism.
"The arguments of the province in this regard cannot be accepted," Richards wrote . ".
"The principle of federalism is not free --
The permanent concept of other laws effectively enacted could be overturned.
On the contrary, this value should be taken into account when interpreting the Constitution.
The court also dismissed the second argument, stating that the tax collected by the act was a regulatory fee, not a tax.
"Even if they are taxes, the bill will not offend s. 53.
"According to Richard's summary, the provincial government of SA considers the bill to be a constitutional violation because it deals with property, civil rights and other matters that are purely local in nature and belong to the provincial exclusive legislature.
Ottawa's response is to seek support for the effective exercise of jurisdiction of the bill as parliament under its national concerns department of "peace, order and good governance (POGG)power.
"This method must be rejected because it will allow the parliament to invade the realm of provincial power so deeply that the balance of federalism will be broken," Richards wrote . ".
"In addition, this will hinder and limit efforts by provinces to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.
He noted, however, that Parliament does have the right to deal with the narrower topic of POGG --
Set strict national standards for greenhouse gas emissions.
"This jurisdiction is unique, unique and indivisible as required by law.
It also has a limited impact on the federal balance, giving the provinces a wide range of legislation in the field of greenhouse gases.
The bill is constitutional in force because its fundamental nature falls within the scope of the authority of POGG.
Judge Caldwell and judge Ottenbreit disagree in their different opinions.
They found that the fuel tax outlined in the federal bill was a tax that was enacted in a "constitutional distaste" manner.
They believe that the provinces have exclusive rights to control greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government has no right to Trump's own constitutional measures.
The judges who disagreed also found that the bill failed to meet the threshold of Ottawa's law under peace, order and good governance.
They believe that this hinders the ability of provinces to develop their own local response to emissions at a "level that best suits the delicate responses required by diverse countries. ”No climate-
Whether in favor of or against federal carbon pricing, all parties recognize climate change as a real problem.
"The factual record submitted to the court confirms that climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gases GHG]
"Emissions are one of the big problems that exist in our time," Richards wrote . ".
"All participants in these procedures accept the urgent importance of limiting such emissions.
"Greenhouse gases are gases that are absorbed and reabsorbed.
Emission of infrared radiation, the most common of which is carbon dioxide [CO2]
Ottenbreit and Caldwell wrote.
"Greenhouse gases are an important contributor to climate change.
Therefore, both parties and intervenors agreed that the government of Canada and the provinces must take measures to reduce the man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
"Because there is no attorney general who questions the cause and effect of man-made greenhouse gases on climate change, nor does anyone question the need to reduce the attendant and presence of human greenhouse gas emissions, there is no dispute over the proof or authenticity of these facts.
That is to say, they are proved to be true.
Newman, a constitutional law expert at the University of the province of SA, said that while the provincial government will not be satisfied with the result, it is a rebuttal for those who say there are no cases in the province.
Meanwhile, Newman said in an interview Friday that the federal government has achieved the results it wants, although most people have rejected its main argument --
National attention to climate change gives it the right to intervene within provincial jurisdiction.
Constitutional expert John White, honorary professor at the University of Regina, agreed that the objectors would be comforted by the fact that two judges supported their faith, prime Minister Trudeau can continue to claim that a carbon tax is an effective regulatory measure.
Both White and Newman noted that such reference cases were not technically binding.
"In theory, it should weigh less than the decision, but believe me, it doesn't," White said . ".
The next provincial governor, Scott Mo, told reporters in Regina on Friday afternoon that his government would file an appeal notice with the Supreme Court of Canada, which must be in about 30 days.
Provincial Attorney General and Attorney General Don Morgan wants the Supreme Court to hear the appeal before the federal election, but admits it is unlikely.
At the same time, the Ministry of Education said the province will continue to implement its grassland resilience plan, which the province promotes as an alternative to federal policy, such as the carbon emissions support plan that came into effect this year.
Newman noted that similar cases are being heard in courts in other jurisdictions.
I will study these two judgments carefully.
"It will be sent to the Supreme Court. (
Friday's decision was)
The first word on the question, not the last word on the question, "Newman said.
"No matter what (
(Court of Appeal in other provinces)
Say, yes or no, then it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada, "White agreed.
"I think if our provincial Court of Appeal says, 'No, the carbon tax is fully constitutional, 'then the Supreme Court (would say)
"Well, we are not dealing with it;
The whole record is clear.
You don't need us, "White added.
"I don't think this will happen.
I think in the end it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada and we will get a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Whyte said: "No matter what decision the Supreme Court makes, it will be similar to a reference case
Technically not binding, but with weight.
"If the Supreme Court of Canada finally says this is an act of the federal government exercising regulatory power in violation of the Constitution, yes, they have to stop," White said . ". —
With Alex McPherson, the reverse hook Pacholik, Austin.