{"id":1940,"date":"2019-07-02T15:37:33","date_gmt":"2019-07-02T15:37:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/?p=1940"},"modified":"2019-07-02T16:39:36","modified_gmt":"2019-07-02T16:39:36","slug":"federal-carbon-pricing-regime-now-two-for-two","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/2019\/07\/federal-carbon-pricing-regime-now-two-for-two\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Carbon Pricing Regime Now Two-for-Two"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On June 28, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ontariocourts.ca\/decisions\/2019\/2019ONCA0544.pdf\">decision<\/a> on the Ontario government\u2019s reference regarding the constitutionality of the federal carbon pricing regime.\u00a0 Like the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled in May, the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the federal <a href=\"https:\/\/laws-lois.justice.gc.ca\/eng\/acts\/G-11.55\/\"><em>Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act<\/em><\/a> (the \u201cAct\u201d) is valid under the Constitution.\u00a0 This article will give a brief summary of the Ontario court\u2019s decision.\u00a0 For a discussion on the possible ramifications of this decision, see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/2019\/05\/saskatchewan-court-upholds-federal-carbon-tax-as-constitutional\/\">our article<\/a> on the Saskatchewan Court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Act<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>As a brief refresher, the Act came into effect on June 21, 2018.\u00a0 In general, the Act contains two regimes: a charge on carbon-based fuels that applies to fuels produced, delivered, or used in a \u201clisted province\u201d based on a rate per CO<sub>2<\/sub> equivalent (Part 1 of the Act); and a mechanism for pricing greenhouse gas emissions by emission-intense industrial facilities (Part 2).<\/p>\n<p>As of July 1, 2019, Part 1 of the Act applies in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon, and Nunavut, and is scheduled to apply in Alberta beginning on January 1, 2020.\u00a0 Part 2 of the Act applies in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, Nunavut, and partially in Saskatchewan. The Act does not apply in certain provinces, like British Columbia and Quebec, which have their own carbon pricing mechanisms which meet the federal standard.<\/p>\n<p>Subsection 165(2) of the Act requires any money raised under the Act to be redistributed in the province it was collected in. \u00a0Section 122.8 of the federal <em>Income Tax Act <\/em>provides for a refundable tax credit for residents in provinces subject to Part 1 of the Act starting with the 2018 taxation year.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In July 2018, the Ontario government announced that it would withdraw from the national carbon pricing program.\u00a0 Ontario then brought a reference to its Court of Appeal to determine if including Ontario as a \u201clisted province\u201d for purposes of the Act was constitutional.\u00a0 The Court heard arguments on April 15-18, 2019.\u00a0 Like the Saskatchewan Court, the Ontario Court reached a split decision on the constitutionality of the Act, with four judges deciding that the Act is constitutional and one holding that it is not.<\/p>\n<p>Aside from the governments of Canada and Ontario, the Court heard submissions from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick, as well as various First Nations and private associations.<\/p>\n<p>As was the case with the Saskatchewan decision, all of the parties to this reference agreed on the serious issue of anthropogenic climate change and the need to take immediate action to combat it.\u00a0 Statements from the majority and minority reasons on this point include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cThere is no dispute that global climate change is taking place and that human activities are the primary cause.\u201d (majority reasons, paragraph 7)<\/li>\n<li>\u201cclimate change will cost Canada\u2019s economy $5 billion per year by 2020, and up to $43 billion per year by 2050 if no action is taken to mitigate its effects.\u201d (majority reasons, paragraph 15)<\/li>\n<li>\u201cOntario agrees that climate change is real, is caused by human activities, is having serious effects, particularly in the north, and requires proactive measures to address it.\u201d (majority reasons, paragraph 55)<\/li>\n<li>\u201call of the governments that are party to the reference\u2026proceed on the basis that climate change is a real and pressing problem that must be addressed.\u201d (minority reasons, paragraph 192)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Ontario Court undertook a similar analysis as was performed by its counterpart in Saskatchewan, albeit in a different order.\u00a0 Both the majority and minority reasons first analyzed the \u201cpith and substance\u201d, or practical effect and intention, of the Act in order to determine if the Act falls under the \u201cnational concern\u201d branch of the federal government\u2019s \u201cpeace, order and good government\u201d (\u201cPOGG\u201d) power under the Constitution (paragraph 67).<\/p>\n<p>The majority reasons (written by Chief Justice Strathy and accepted by Justices MacPherson and Sharpe) did not accept either Canada\u2019s or Ontario\u2019s characterization of the pith and substance of the Act, but instead undertook its own analysis and concluded that the Act\u2019s pith and substance is \u201cestablishing minimum national standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [GHGs]\u201d (paragraph 77).\u00a0 The majority held that the Act\u2019s effect \u201cis to put a price on carbon pollution, thereby limiting access to a scarce resource: the atmosphere\u2019s capacity to absorb GHGs\u201d (paragraph 76).<\/p>\n<p>After making this determination, the majority held that the Act does fall within the federal government\u2019s POGG power.\u00a0 The majority reasoned that provinces acting on their own cannot establish minimum carbon pollution standards, as one province opting out of such a program would adversely impact the remaining provinces.\u00a0 That is, \u201c[t]his is the quintessential case in which the failure of a province to cooperate would undermine the actions of other provinces, and would place unfair burdens on other provinces, potentially subverting a cooperative national scheme\u201d (paragraph 120).\u00a0 The majority held that \u201cGHGs are not inherently divisible\u201d, such that emissions in one province do not only affect that province (paragraph 123).\u00a0 The majority held that the Act does not unduly affect individual provinces\u2019 ability to legislate on GHG emissions, and concluded that the Act is valid under the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>Associate Chief Justice Hoy, while agreeing with the majority that the Act is constitutional, did so for slightly different reasons.\u00a0 Justice Hoy characterized the Act\u2019s pith and substance as \u201cestablishing minimum national greenhouse gas emissions pricing standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions\u201d (paragraph 166).\u00a0 Justice Hoy reasoned that the majority\u2019s characterization of the Act\u2019s pith and substance was too broad and could improperly impede on provincial legislative jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Huscroft wrote the lone dissenting opinion, holding that the Act is unconstitutional and invalid.\u00a0 To reach this conclusion, Justice Huscroft characterized the pith and substance of the Act as simply \u201cGHG emissions\u201d (paragraph 213), as did the minority reasons of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.\u00a0 Using this pith and substance, Justice Huscroft concluded that the Act unduly impacts the ability of provinces to legislate on GHG emissions, stating that without the Act, \u201cnothing stops the provinces from taking steps to reduce their GHG emissions, and hence the emissions of Canada as a whole, and they are in fact doing so\u201d (paragraph 230).\u00a0 Like Justice Hoy, Justice Huscoft also criticized the majority\u2019s characterization of the Act\u2019s pith and substance as being too broad, asking whether \u201cminimum national standards\u201d for GHG emissions could allow Parliament to legislate into provincial territory such as home heating and cooling, public transit, road design, fuel efficiency, manufacturing, and farming (paragraph 237).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Of the 10 judges in Canada who have now heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Act, seven have upheld it as falling within the federal government\u2019s legislative powers.\u00a0 The next step for the Act will be a hearing in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.\u00a0 The Supreme Court will hear Saskatchewan\u2019s appeal of that Court\u2019s decision in December, and Ontario has already announced its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/news\/canada\/toronto\/ontario-court-appeal-carbon-tax-ruling-1.5192914\">intention<\/a> to appeal its own Court\u2019s decision to the Supreme Court as well, which will be sure to increase the reported $30 million that the Ontario government has already spent on its challenge to the Act.\u00a0 Thus, the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Act is likely to be determined by the Supreme Court of Canada sometime in 2020, if not earlier depending on the outcome of the federal election which is scheduled for October 21, 2019.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On June 28, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ontariocourts.ca\/decisions\/2019\/2019ONCA0544.pdf\">decision<\/a> on the Ontario government\u2019s reference regarding the constitutionality of the federal carbon pricing regime.\u00a0 Like the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled in May, the majority of the&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,24,13,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1940","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-tax-cases","category-musings","category-personal-tax","category-tax-litigation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1940","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1940"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1940\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1945,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1940\/revisions\/1945"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1940"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1940"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}