OTTAWA -- The federal environment minister says this week鈥檚 Supreme Court ruling deeming a national price on pollution constitutional will not lead to federal overreach in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
In an interview on CTV鈥檚 Question Period airing Sunday, Jonathan Wilkinson dismissed concerns among some provincial leaders and dissenting opinions from the court, who argue that such a move hands over too much power to the federal government to encroach on provincial taxation laws, in this situation specifically, and may lead to further impositions.
鈥淚 don't, you know, personally have any concerns that this opens a Pandora's box in terms of federal jurisdiction and I don't think that's what the Supreme Court intended and I think if you read the judgment, you would find that to be the case,鈥� Wilkinson said, speaking to host Evan Solomon. 鈥淚 would also say it's important that we're collaborating with provinces and territories.鈥�
In a 6-3 decision, the top court decided on Thursday that a price on pollution is entirely constitutional and that Ottawa has a right to set minimum pricing standards for greenhouse gas emissions in the provinces.
"The undisputed existence of a threat to the future of humanity cannot be ignored," Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote.
Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta challenged the federal Liberal government's 2018 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in court, arguing it was a federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction.
Justice Russell Brown 鈥� one of the dissenters of the Supreme Court ruling 鈥� , 鈥淭his is a model of federalism that rejects the Constitution and rewrites the rules of Confederation.鈥�
鈥淚ts implications go far beyond the Act , opening the door to federal intrusion -- by way of the imposition of national standards -- into all areas of provincial jurisdiction, including intra-provincial trade and commerce, health, and the management of natural resources. It is bound to lead to serious tensions in the federation. And all for no good reason, since Parliament could have achieved its goals in constitutionally valid ways.鈥�
Wilkinson said missed in this debate is the recognition the federal government is working 鈥減roductively鈥� with Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta on other aspects of the Liberals鈥� climate plan.
鈥淚 think that's what Canadians want to see going forward. I hope we can put this issue behind us now that the Supreme Court has decided, and we can move forward with climate action that's going to help us to build a strong economy that's going to be strong in a low carbon universe,鈥� he said.
Despite having concerns about the effectiveness of a price on fuel, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said the province will be moving forward with a plan to comply with national standards, but will look at other ways of reducing emissions.
鈥淲hat we are attempting to have here in Saskatchewan is a much broader conversation that yes, does have a focus on emissions, but also brings sequestration opportunities into that conversation,鈥� said Moe. 鈥淎s opposed to just taxing emissions that disproportionately hurts people in different areas of the country.鈥�
OPPOSITION REACTION
Conservative Leader Erin O鈥橳oole has responded to the decision stating that while it confirms that climate change is real, it doesn鈥檛 indicate that a national carbon levy is the way to fight it.
鈥淭he court said what we all know -- that climate change is real and it鈥檚 important for us to have a serious approach," he said in an interview on CTV News Channel鈥檚 Power Play on Thursday. 鈥淥ur approach is going to try and partner with the provinces focus on the economy, and have a plan to get emissions down but without Mr. Trudeau is carbon tax.鈥�
Edmonton-based Tory MP Tim Uppal echoed this sentiment in a separate interview on Question Period, stating the Conservatives will soon present a comprehensive plan to fight climate change that will prioritize jobs instead of hurting 鈥渢he poorest among us.鈥�
鈥淲e don鈥檛 have to have a carbon tax that hurts Canadians and hurts Canadian jobs, there are other ways that we can do it,鈥� said Uppal, without adding specific detail about what that would look like, other than through collaboration with the provinces.
A February, 2020 report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) states that the majority of Canadians who live in provinces where the federal carbon levy applies actually have more to gain from the rebate structure that returns 90 per cent of the revenues collected from the additional fuel cost.
"Under the federal government's current rebate structure, most households will still receive more than what they pay in fuel charges," the PBO Yves Giroux said at the time. "However, once the provincial and federal sales taxes on carbon pricing are accounted for, these amounts will be lower on a net basis when compared with the analysis in our previous report."
To that end, Uppal said he鈥檚 heard anecdotal evidence that the extra cost is a financial strain.
鈥淲hat I鈥檓 hearing from Canadians is that they鈥檙e frustrated that they鈥檙e paying more for gas, or paying more to get to work. They鈥檙e paying more going from their homes and many suburbs, going to downtown to go to work,鈥� he said.
With a file from The Canadian Press.
