With implications across the country, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal handed down a 3-2 decision on May 3, ruling that the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA) falls within federal government’s “National Concern” constitutional power. The Saskatchewan Association for Environmental Law has compiled all the legal submission documents here ; the EcoFiscal Commission provides a summary of the 155-page Decision here .
Local coverage and reaction appeared in the Regina Leader Post (May 3) in “Court of Appeal: Saskatchewan government loses carbon tax challenge , and the Premier of Saskatchewan immediately declared that the province will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which it must do within 30 days. As the Globe and Mail points out, “Saskatchewan court rules federal carbon tax constitutional in first of several legal challenges” . According to a CBC report, the Premier of New Brunswick is still considering his options, but newly-elected Premier Jason Kenny of Alberta will join the Saskatchewan Supreme Court action. The Premier of Manitoba announced that his government will not abandon its own court challenge, which it launched on April 3. In Ontario, the Ford government is aggressively promoting its own battle over the carbon tax: four days of hearings ended on April 18th, and the Ontario Court of Appeal is expected to render its own decision on the constitutionality of the carbon tax in several months – possibly not until after the federal election in October 2019.
The political significance of the Saskatchewan decision: Aaron Wherry at CBC summarizes the general situation in “The carbon tax survived Saskatchewan. That was the easy part” (May 4). The Globe and Mail states what is a widely accepted opinion in its editorial, “Why conservatives secretly love the carbon tax”: “Round One goes to Ottawa. But the courtroom war against the federal carbon tax continues – waged by a fraternity of conservative provincial governments with more of an eye on immediate political returns than ultimate legal outcomes.”
Update: Three law professors- Jason MacLean (University of Saskatchewan), Nathalie Chalifour ( University of Ottawa) and Sharon Mascher (University of Calgary) published a reaction to the Saskatchewan Court’s decision on May 7 in The Conversation. “Work on Climate not weaponizing the constitution” takes issue with some of the finer legal points of the decision, but welcomes the Court’s recognition of the urgency and scale of the climate emergency, and concludes: “We have to stop weaponizing the Constitution and start working together, across party lines at all levels of government, on urgent and ambitious climate action.”