CCentral-Main-logo-EN-trans

Convenience Central
Join our community
extra content
027001

Ontario’s anti-carbon tax stickers here to stay

Screen Shot 2019-10-29 at 10.32.57 AMAnti-carbon tax stickers will stay up on gas pumps as “a matter of transparency” while Ontario continues its court fight against the federal levy, the province’s energy minister said.

Greg Rickford defended the Progressive Conservative government’s controversial decal as a way to provide people with important information on the carbon price, a measure he referred to as “job-killing.”

A government law forcing gas station owners to post the stickers came into effect at the end of August, weeks before the start of the federal election, and they will stay up even now that the vote is over, Rickford said.

“The sticker campaign will certainly remain,” he said. “We believe that as a matter of transparency consumers have the right to know where those cost pressures are. Look, over the course of time, retailers … have not hesitated in many instances to put a pie chart on their gas pumps to let people know where those costs are.”

The Progressive Conservative government has been waging a legal and public relations battle against the carbon tax since taking power last summer. Their efforts include the new legislation, which threatens to impose a fine of $150 against gas station operators who fail to display the stickers.

Rickford said no gas station owners have yet been fined, and inspectors are currently only issuing warnings.

The stickers have been criticized as forced speech by opposition politicians and Ontario’s Chamber of Commerce, who have called on the government to stop the program.

Meanwhile, Premier Doug Ford said in August that voters would determine the fate of the legal challenge on the Oct. 21 federal election. But last week, following the federal Liberals’ re-election, the Tories said they would proceed with the court challenge of the tax. Rickford reiterated that commitment this week.

The government has earmarked $30 million for its fight against the carbon tax, which includes the legal case it is taking to the country’s top court and the sticker campaign.

A spokeswoman for federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said Canadians sent a clear message in last week’s election that they expect their leaders to work together on issues like affordability and cutting pollution.

“Canadians know that protecting the environment, growing the economy and making life more affordable go together,” Sabrina Kim said in a statement. “That’s what they expect, and we will continue to deliver on our commitments.”

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said the government should drop both the sticker campaign and the legal challenge immediately.

“It’s a waste of money. It’s a waste of time. It’s a waste of resources all so that the premier can fight against any kind of commitment to deal with climate change,” she said.

Interim Liberal Leader John Fraser said Ford promised to let voters decide and they didn’t give him the answer he wanted.

“He killed a plan for climate change and he’s trying to kill another one and he has no plan,” he said. “That’s not helpful to Ontarians.”

Green party Leader Mike Schreiner said the Ford government “should just essentially drop this politically motivated lawsuit that he has no hope of winning anyway.”

The stickers show the federal carbon tax adding 4.4 cents per litre to the price of gas now, rising to 11 cents a litre in 2022. They do not include information about rebates available to residents.

The carbon tax is expected to cost a typical household $258 this year and $648 by 2022. Residents of provinces with the tax will be getting rebates on their income tax returns that start at $128 annually and increase for people with spouses or dependents at home.

 


Screen Shot 2019-05-31 at 9.16.36 AM

Ontario to ban promotion of vaping products in gas stations, convenience stores

Screen Shot 2019-05-31 at 9.16.36 AMOntario announced Friday it will ban the promotion of vaping products in convenience stores and gas stations, a move critics said does not go far enough to protect the health of young people.

Health Minister Christine Elliott said she made the decision in response to new research that showed vaping is on the rise among youth in the province.

“That’s a big concern to me,” she said. “I know that is a big concern to parents and families and I’m concerned about the potential health effects the increase in vaping has brought forward so we are starting with this prohibition of advertising.”

Elliott said the ban takes effect on Jan. 1, 2020.

Ontario was set to ban the advertising of vaping products in convenience stores under the previous Liberal government but the Progressive Conservatives paused regulations that were to come into effect on July 1, 2018 shortly after they took office.

The province’s change of direction Friday comes as health authorities in Canada have begun to closely monitor reports of respiratory illnesses potentially linked to vaping. In the U.S., health authorities have reported 1,604 cases of vaping-related illnesses, including 34 deaths.

No single ingredient, electronic cigarette or vaping device has been linked to all the illnesses in the U.S., but most who got sick said they vaped products containing THC, the high-inducing ingredient in marijuana.

Last month, Elliott issued a ministerial order to public hospitals to report vaping-related cases of severe pulmonary disease.

“My responsibility is to ensure the health and safety of our young people and that’s why we’re moving forward now with this ban,” she said.

The province will still allow vaping to be promoted in specialty stores and cannabis shops, which are open to people aged 19 and older.

The government will make the change by amending a provincial regulation to bring it in line with the current ban on in-store tobacco promotion.

Ontario now joins seven other Canadian provinces that have introduced similar restrictions on vaping promotion.

A year ago, the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco – which includes the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart & Stroke Foundation – asked the Ford government to ban display and advertising of vaping products in thousands of convenience stores across Ontario.

The groups said at the time that it would lead to increased nicotine addiction among teenagers, and on Friday its director applauded the move by the government.

“It’s pretty clear the government has looked at the evidence that has been published on youth vaping on how it’s growing in Ontario since they legalized promotion in retail settings,” Michael Perley said. “The evidence says they need to do more to stop messaging to young people … that these products are normal and just like candy and pop that kids go into convenience stores to look for.”

Perley praised the provincial ban as going further than current federal limits on advertising to youth, which he describe as too subjective. But he said the Tories should limit the sale of the vaping products to the hundreds of specialty shops which already exist across the province and have the expertise to help adult smokers.

“Smokers will get much better advice there than in a convenience store with line-ups and clerks who have never been trained on this issue,” he said.

NDP health critic Frances Gelinas said the Tories should never have paused the previous government’s bill to prohibit the practice.

“We’ve taken one tiny step,” she said. “But there are so many more steps that need to be taken to make sure that we don’t have this entire generation addicted to nicotine.”

Gelinas said the province should push forward with further reforms, including limiting flavours aimed at attracting children to vaping and limiting sales to specialty stores.

Health Canada has said vaping has risks and the long-term effects remain unknown.

The president of the Vaping Industry Trade Association said the voice of that sector has not been heard by the Ford government and called the ban “disappointing”.

Daniel David said the ban will prevent smokers from becoming aware of an option that is less harmful than tobacco.

“We strongly support measures that will restrict youth access, however this must be balanced to ensure that adult smokers still have access to these products,” he said in a statement.


31360 LCBO Convenience Outlet Logo

LCBO Convenience Outlets opening in select c-stores across Ontario

As part of the Provincial Government’s plan to deliver more choice and convenience for consumers when it comes to alcohol, several new Convenience Outlets are now open in Ontario convenience stores. The LCBO continues to invite businesses in select communities to apply for LCBO Convenience Outlet status with its Request for Proposal (RFP) now through October 8, 2019.

The Caledon Enterprise reports the Esso Station at Charleston Sideroad and Cataract Road in Caledon Village is up and running with “a small selection of liquor, wine, beer and ciders, including a cold fridge for some chilled varieties.” The Shell Station at Airport Road and Highway 9 in Mono Mills is “expecting to stock shelves in two to three weeks,” while, Palgrave Variety at 17210 Highway 50 in Palgrave started selling LCBO products on Sept. 5.

The Provincial government announced in June that the LCBO would authorize approximately 200 LCBO Convenience Outlets by spring 2020. Retailers in 302 communities interested in becoming authorized to sell beverage alcohol can access the RFP and download an application package here. Sixty stores were to open by now and up to another 90 by the end of 2019, with the remainder opening in spring 2020.

Established in 1962, The LCBO Convenience Outlet program (previously the Agency Store Program) provides access to beverage alcohol products to communities that do not otherwise have convenient access to an LCBO retail store. At the moment, there are more than 200 outlets across the province. The latest plans by the provincial government would see that number double.

All applicants that meet the requirements for an authorization will be entered in a lottery for each community. Those selected will be eligible to operate as LBCO Convenience Outlets.


Ontario takes legal fight over federal carbon tax to Supreme Court

Ontario is taking its fight against the federal carbon tax to the country’s top court.

Environment Minister Jeff Yurek says the province is asking the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn a decision from Ontario’s Court of Appeal that found the carbon pricing scheme is constitutionally sound.

The Progressive Conservatives say the carbon charge is an illegal tax and a violation of the Constitution because it allows the federal government to intrude on provincial jurisdiction.

Ontario’s top court ruled in a split decision in June that the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, enacted in April, is within Parliament’s jurisdiction to legislate in relation to matters of “national concern.”

The filing to the Supreme Court comes after Ontario Premier Doug Ford said last week that the fate of the province’s carbon tax court challenge would be decided after the federal election.

Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are all in the midst of legal challenges against the carbon price.

 


Competition watchdog writes province to support loosening Ontario liquor rules

Canada’s competition commissioner says he supports measures to increase competition in Ontario’s alcohol industry.

Matthew Boswell writes in an open letter to Ontario Finance Minister Rod Phillips that the competition bureau supports a special adviser’s recommendations, including the government working to authorize more retail outlets to sell alcohol.

He says the changes could give retailers equal opportunity to sell their products, encourage price competition and support proper wholesale pricing.

That, in turn, could lead to consumers having more products to choose from and lower prices.

Under the current system, a maximum of 450 grocery stores can sell alcohol, licensed retailers must charge identical prices for products, and bars and restaurants must purchase alcohol from the LCBO and the Beer Store at consumer prices rather than wholesale ones.

Boswell wrote a similar letter to B.C.’s attorney general in January, supporting recommendations aimed at increasing competition in that province’s alcohol sector made in a report commissioned by the provincial government.


Alcohol linked ER visits by women and youth on the rise in Ont., study suggests

Alcohol-related health problems are posing a growing burden on Ontario emergency rooms, including a disproportionate spike in visits by women and young people, a new study suggests.

Experts say the findings signal that the harms of alcohol use are not only on the rise, but becoming more widespread across the population.

The study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last month, looked at patterns in alcohol-related ER visits in Ontario between 2003 and 2016.

Researchers with the University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital, the Bruyere Research Institute and ICES (formerly known as the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences) examined several databases of provincial records containing medical and demographic information for more than 15 million Ontario residents aged 10 to 105.

Using diagnostic codes, they found conditions caused by alcohol use—including acute intoxication, alcohol dependence and withdrawal and alcoholic liver disease—were listed as a main or contributing factor in 765,346 ER visits.

The number of alcohol-related ER visits climbed by an annual average of seven% over the 14-year period, increasing at 4.4 times the rate of ER visits overall, the study suggests.

Daniel Myran, lead author of the study, said these findings only represent the “tip of the iceberg” of the damage caused by drinking, noting the numbers don’t account for long-term health hazards, accidents and “second-hand” harm to others, such as violence.

“The increases we’ve seen in alcohol harms are affecting everyone in society, and they’re doing so in an equal way,” said Myran, a family physician and resident at Ottawa Hospital, in a phone interview.

In keeping with previous trends, the data showed that more than two-thirds of patients who went to the ER because of alcohol use were men. But Myran said women have “narrowed that gap.”

Over the study period, the rate of alcohol-related ER visits by women rose 86.5%, compared to 53.2% for men.

The rate of alcohol-related ER visits spiked by 175% among individuals aged 25 to 29, and the change was even more pronounced among young women in the cohort, who saw an increase of 240%, researchers said.

This gender shift was also apparent in ER visits related to underage drinking, with the rates for women below the age of 19 exceeding those of their male peers since 2007, according to the study.

Sheryl Spithoff, an addiction medicine physician at Toronto’s Women’s College Hospital, who authored a commentary on the study, said the results are consistent with broader trends across the country.

Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information suggests the rate of women dying from causes directly linked to alcohol rose by 26% between 2001 and 2016-2017, compared to a five% increase among men.

For physiological reasons, Spithoff said women are more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol, so it’s unsurprising to see that they’re disproportionately suffering health consequences.

In recent years, Canadian women have been consuming more alcohol following a shift in gender norms that made drinking more acceptable, said Spithoff.

This message has been amplified with the so-called “pinking” of alcohol marketing, she added, saying there’s anecdotal evidence to suggest that advertisements are increasingly geared towards women.

Spithoff noted that in Ontario, rates of alcohol consumption remained relatively steady between 2011 and 2016, according to Statistics Canada, but it appears that people’s habits have become more harmful, fuelled in part by a culture of binge drinking, particularly among young people.

Research indicates that regulations limiting the availability of alcohol can reduce the harms of substance use, she said. But in Ontario, she warned, it appears policy-makers are moving in the “opposite direction.”

Premier Doug Ford promised during last year’s election campaign to make beer and wine available in corner stores, grocery stores and big-box stores.

Along with promising to expand beer and wine sales, the Progressive Conservative government has loosened rules around alcohol consumption in the province in their spring budget.

Ontario will now allow bars, restaurants, and golf courses to start serving alcohol at 9 a.m., seven days a week, and is promising consultations on a further increase in hours of services in the future.

The government will also let municipalities establish rules about where booze can be consumed in public, such as in some parks. Regulations are also changing to allow tailgating parties near sports events across the province.

“While the government trusts Ontarians to make smart, mature and responsible choices when it comes to alcohol use, it maintains a strong commitment to social responsibility,” a spokeswoman for Ontario’s Health Ministry said in a email, pointing to provincial efforts to promote the safe consumption of alcohol, such as $3.8-billion investment to support people struggling with addiction.

But Spithoff said the results of the Ontario study show that provincial lawmakers need to not only reverse their policy direction, but make more drastic interventions, or we’ll be paying the price for today’s decisions in increased health-care costs down the road.

“I think we need to … realize that alcohol is a substance that is as at least as harmful as cocaine and tobacco and treat it within a public health model,” she said.

“We would expect that with these policy changes consumption (will increase), and particularly in youth and people who drink heavily, and those groups are at most risk for harms.”


shutterstock_773619718

Ontario should heed lessons of other provinces for new beer system: experts

shutterstock_773619718As the Ontario government prepares to move ahead with its plans to overhaul the province’s 92-year-old beer distribution system, experts say it should heed lessons from retail sales systems in other provinces.

Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives have made it clear that their goal is to give Ontarians more choice and convenience when it comes to alcohol sales, but details are scant as to how they hope to achieve this.

The PCs have the option of adopting the systems used in Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia, or they can develop something unique.

“The lack of detail suggests that they just have this principle of liberalizing but they haven’t got a vision of what kind of system they want,” says Dan Malleck, a beer expert and associate professor applied health sciences at Brock University.

The B.C. model uses provincially owned and private liquor stores but doesn’t allow purchases in supermarkets. Alberta’s system is entirely private with no limit on the number of stores. Quebec allows sales in grocery stores, convenience stores and big box outlets like Costco in addition to government-run liquor outlets.

Most provinces restrict beer sales to provincially owned stores but Newfoundlanders can pick up a cold one from corner stores and gas stations, while New Brunswickers will be able to buy beer in select grocery stores starting in October.

Ontario retail groups are pushing the province to adopt a system similar to Quebec where distribution is widespread and retailers can set their own prices after negotiating directly with breweries. That allows them to pass along any savings to consumers instead of being constrained by a universal selling price set by producers.

“Our preferred model is essentially the Quebec model,” says Karl Littler, the council’s senior vice-president, public affairs.

That would not be as financially beneficial for the owners of The Beer Store, he acknowledges, but they would still prosper.

“It doesn’t seem like they’ve had any difficulty selling in the province of Quebec or in the province of Alberta or indeed in any province,” he said in an interview.

The Beer Store, which is owned by the foreign brewing giants that control Labatt, Molson and Sleeman, accounts for almost 70% of beer sales volume in Ontario, which generated $3.3 billion in sales in 2017-18, according to a recent report by consultant Ken Hughes which recommended changes Ontario should adopt.

Littler said the Beer Store is looking to defend a system that gives its owners substantially greater margins in Ontario than they enjoy in Quebec because of the way that they control both wholesale and retail prices.

Expanding the number of points of sale is sure to increase distribution costs as it has in Quebec where beer is delivered to about 8,000 locations instead of Ontario which has the fewest per capita retail locations in the country, says Dave Bryans, CEO of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association.

“Right now the extra savings go to the beer companies, not to the consumers,” he said in an interview.

Bryans said minimum prices need to be set to protect craft brewers from predatory prices by the global brewers, but he has no problem with beer prices being a little more expensive in convenience stores than at grocers or The Beer Store.

Craft beer sales represent less than 2% of sales at The Beer Store but more than 10% at government-run LCBO locations and more than 15% at grocers.

Allowing sales of beer, especially craft selections, in family-run independent corner stores can help to save a sector that’s been losing five stores a week in the province for the last decade, said Bryans.

“I actually think the craft beer business will bring more millennials into the sector as well and really help shore up the future business model in every community.”

He thinks Ontario will select an open and competitive market like Quebec’s, but with a bias towards craft beer because it is more developed in Ontario than Quebec where the dominance of the big breweries has long controlled shelf space.

The future of Ontario’s beer distribution system remains a mystery because the law that rips up a 10-year agreement with the Beer Store signed in 2015 by the previous Liberal government has yet to be proclaimed more than a month after receiving Royal Assent.

Industry observers believe the provincial government is using the threat of rescinding the legal rights of The Beer Store to compensation as a hammer to force a deal with the retailer.

The Beer Store declined to comment but said after the law was introduced that it would “fight this legislation vigorously through the courts.”

A spokeswoman for Ontario’s new finance minister, Rod Phillips, said the government plans to stick with its campaign promise despite a cabinet shuffle and threat of legal action, but declined to provide any details about the how the system will change or answer questions about the timing of implementing a new law.

“We will continue to work towards getting the best deal possible for Ontario consumers and businesses, and at this time cannot speculate on the outcome of this process,” said Emily Hogeveen in an email.

Canada’s retail council expects the Beer Store will remain a viable competitor even though it estimates that grocery and convenience stores might get about half of the current Beer Store retail business following the changes.

“I think the story that they’re just going to somehow wither on the vine is a little strange,” he said. “Obviously it would be significant or they wouldn’t be spitting bullets like they are currently about the prospect of change.”


Ontario to issue 50 new cannabis store licences: What could this mean for c-stores?

cannabisOntario is set to get 50 more cannabis stores starting in October, and applicants will have to first show they have their finances and retail space ready to go.

The announcement June 26th comes as some of the first 25 of the province’s legal pot shops that were supposed to open April 1 are still not up and running.

Those initial retailers were chosen through a lottery to open Ontario’s first brick-and-mortar cannabis stores—when the drug became legal recreationally last October it was only available online through the government-run Ontario Cannabis Store—and that lottery system has faced criticism for not including a merit component.

In other Canadian jurisdictions allowing for the private sale of cannabis, successful retailers often include convenience stores. For instance, of the 24 retailers selected to qualify for cannabis sales in Newfoundland and Labrador, one is a convenience store in Labrador City. Last summer, a Co-op gas-bar in Calgary was given the green light.

Convenience operators in Ontario are watching the situation. One of the questions is whether the government will allow cannabis stores-within-a-store or insist they be entirely separate.

Either way, convenience-store operators like Alimentation Couche-Tard, which has a large number of Ontario locations, are well positioned.

“We have the ability to sell this product while meeting all government requirements (and) we can train our staff on verifying the identity of all consumers, regardless of their age,” Couche-Tard founder and executive chairman Alain Bouchard foreshadowed at the company’s 2017 annual meeting.

In February 2019, Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. entered into a multi-year trademark license agreement with Canopy Growth Corporation, one of the winners of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario’s Expression of Interest Application Lottery, who was preparing to operate a “Tweed” branded retail store in London, Ont. The store opened in May in a shopping plaza that is also home to Walmart, LCBO, Beer Store, Movie Theatre, Farm Boy and others.

In a release, the new partners stated: “Through this partnership, Alimentation Couche-Tard is aiming to lean on Canopy Growth’s cannabis expertise and leverage its experience with other age-restricted products to focus on the safe, responsible and lawful sale of cannabis, consistent with the legislation enacted by the federal and provincial governments. As two Canadian-made and globally-positioned companies, the London location will serve as an important entry to market that could lead to future international opportunities.”

“Alimentation Couche-Tard is excited about taking a leadership role in the development of cannabis retailing excellence in this major Canadian market. We believe the Ontario Cannabis Store and private retailers will co-exist under a tightly regulated framework with common goals to protect public health and safety,” said Couche-Tard president and CEO Brian Hannasch.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario will hold a lottery on Aug. 20 for the next 42 retail store authorizations. Another eight stores will be located on First Nations reserves through a separate process.

For this lottery, applicants will have to show evidence that if they are selected, they have already secured retail space that could be used as a store and that they have enough capital to open it, the AGCO said.

One licenced cannabis producer said the latest initiative will position the industry for significant sales growth in Canada’s largest province.

“After the first 25 stores began to open in Ontario, the industry saw overall sales of cannabis basically double,” Dr. Avtar Dhillon, executive chairman and president of Emerald Health Therapeutics said in a statement.

“Adult-use consumers are showing a preference for going into a physical location where they can interact with educated, savvy budtenders and we anticipate that the further expansion of physical stores in Ontario and Canada will strongly serve the growth of legal cannabis sales.”

The Ontario government decided on an initial round of just 25 stores, citing national supply issues, but that appears to be easing.

“Our government is continuing to take a responsible approach to opening cannabis stores across Ontario, allowing private sector businesses to build a safe and convenient retail system to combat the illegal market,” Finance Minister Rod Phillips said in a statement.

“With marginal improvements in national supply, we are proceeding to issue up to 50 new cannabis store licences.”

Attorney General Doug Downey said in a statement that a phased approach is still necessary.

“While the federal supply issues persist, we cannot in good conscience issue an unlimited number of licences to businesses,” he wrote.

Omar Khan, a vice-president with Hill+Knowlton Strategies who advises several clients in the cannabis industry, said the announcement is a positive step, but called for further action.

“If the government wants to eliminate the illicit market they will need to ensure that consumers are able to access legal product offerings conveniently and in a timely manner,” he said in a statement.

“This means moving aggressively towards an open licensing system as soon as the national supply situation permits, and working with the private sector to significantly improve the current online customer retail experience.”

The 42 new stores selected through the lottery will be distributed regionally, with 13 in the city of Toronto, six going to the Greater Toronto Area, 11 in the west region, seven going to the east region, and in the north, one each in Kenora, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Timmins.

Stores will be allowed to open in any municipality regardless of population if the community did not opt out of having cannabis stores.

The process for First Nation stores will start in July on a first-come, first-served basis.

With files from Canadian Press. 


Court agrees to suspend legal proceedings against tobacco companies until fall

An Ontario court has agreed to extend an order suspending legal proceedings against three major tobacco companies as they negotiate a settlement with their creditors after losing an appeal in a multibillion-dollar case in Quebec.

The stay of proceedings was granted in March as part of the creditor protection process and upheld the following month after some of the companies’ creditors challenged it.

The order was set to expire June 28, but will now be renewed until Oct. 4.

The companies – JTI-Macdonald Corp., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. – had initially sought to prolong the stay until December but presented a revised proposal last week.

The order was first obtained shortly after Quebec’s highest court upheld a landmark decision that ordered the tobacco companies to pay more than $15 billion to smokers in two class-action lawsuits.

The stay is meant to maintain the status quo while the companies go through mediation with all those who have claims against them, including the class-action members and several provincial governments.

Lawyers representing the class members argued in April that the stay in their case should be revoked if the companies plan to appeal the Quebec ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Thomas McEwen rejected their request, saying it would give an unfair advantage to the Quebec creditors over the others.

But he ruled the stay would also prevent any of the companies from seeking leave to appeal to Canada’s top court unless they obtain the court’s permission.

McEwen also denied Ontario’s bid to push forward with a lawsuit that aims to recover smoking-related health-care costs from a dozen Canadian firms and their parent companies, including the three companies granted the stay.

The judge said allowing the lawsuit to proceed before settlement talks are complete would favour Ontario over other provincial governments seeking similar relief.

Health groups have also opposed the stay, calling it a delay tactic by companies whose profitability isn’t immediately threatened.

In a statement issued this week, the groups say the companies “have not even initiated settlement discussions, and have set no time limits to address the claims made against them.”


Ottawa’s carbon pricing law valid, Ontario’s top court rules

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.18.48 AMOntario’s top court has ruled the federal government’s carbon charge is constitutionally sound.

In a split decision, the five-judge panel rejected a challenge from Premier Doug Ford’s government to the validity of the carbon-pricing law.

Ottawa maintains it had to act to deal with the urgent threat of climate change as an issue of national concern.

The federal government said its approach-imposing a levy on gasoline and fossil fuels-respected provincial jurisdiction.

Ontario and three other provinces argued the Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau overstepped its authority in imposing the charge.

Last month in a split decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal sided with Ottawa in a similar challenge.

The Doug Ford government challenged the constitutionality of the carbon-pricing law before a five-judge panel in April.

It argued the Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau overstepped its authority in imposing the charge.

 

The federal government maintains the levy in Ontario (currently four cents a litre on gasoline) is a regulatory charge designed to change behaviour in favour of lower greenhouse gas emissions. Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government called the charge an illegal tax—another violation of the Constitution.

During four days of submissions, Ontario insisted the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act would undermine co-operative federalism by allowing Ottawa to overstep the dividing line between federal and provincial spheres of authority.

Provincial lawyers told the Court of Appeal the federal government would end up with the power to regulate almost every facet of life, such as when you can drive, where you can live, or whether you can have a wood-burning fireplace. They also argued the province has its own approach to the climate-change issue.

For their part, federal lawyers argued the province was fearmongering. The law, they said, would not result in an expansion of constitutional powers that would give Ottawa carte blanche to regulate issues that fall squarely within provincial jurisdiction.

The act, which took effect April 1, was a legitimate response to potentially catastrophic climate change, federal lawyers argued.

The act currently only applies in four provinces—Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan—which Ottawa says don’t meet national standards.

In all, 14 interveners—among them some provinces, Indigenous groups and environmental and business organizations—lined up to defend or attack the federal law, with most siding with Ottawa. Indigenous groups, for example, stressed their vulnerability to global warming that they said could destroy their way of life.

Some observers said the Ontario challenge was more about politics than the environment.

The issue is expected to be ultimately decided before the country’s top court. The Supreme Court of Canada has already said it hear Saskatchewan’s challenge in December, after the October federal election.