From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Kris Sims

“Alberta families packing up the minivan to go visit the grandparents in Manitoba will be shocked to see a much lower gas price over there, thanks to that NDP government’s lower fuel taxes”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is urging the Alberta government to give drivers a break on fuel taxes as the summer road trip season kicks off.

“Alberta families packing up the minivan to go visit the grandparents in Manitoba will be shocked to see a much lower gas price over there, thanks to that NDP government’s lower fuel taxes,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “Premier Danielle Smith did the right thing when she suspended the Alberta fuel tax for a year. It saved families so much money and it would be a good thing for her to do that again for the summer.”

In January 2023, the Alberta government fully suspended the provincial fuel tax for a year, saving drivers 13 cents per litre of gasoline and diesel.

On average, that tax suspension saved Alberta drivers about $10 filling up a minivan and about $15 filling up a pickup truck.

On April 1, 2024, the Alberta government hiked the tax back up to 13 cents per litre, on the same day Prime Minister Justin Trudeau increased the federal carbon tax to 17 cents per litre of gasoline and 21 cents per litre of diesel.

Manitoba NDP Premier Wab Kinew fully suspended his province’s 15 cent per litre fuel tax on Jan. 1, 2024. He has now extended it to at least September.

Ontario PC Premier Doug Ford has kept his provincial fuel tax partially suspended, saving five cents per litre for more than two years.

Alberta’s fiscal update is expected to be released by the Alberta government soon, a time that often includes updates on affordability actions by the government, including tax relief.

“Albertans are still waiting for their provincial income tax cut and they are paying the full price at the pump for the provincial fuel tax, so it’s tough for them to feel the Albera Advantage right about now,” said Sims. “The Alberta government needs to make good on its promise of lower taxes and drivers should be given lower fuel taxes at the pumps this summer.”

From the Canadian Constitution Foundation

“In this case, criminal law power should not be allowed to justify the sweeping inclusion of every imaginable plastic product on the list of ‘toxic’ substances and therefore under the umbrella of federal authority,” … “The Cabinet Order plastic ban is outside the scope of the federal power.”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is appearing as an intervener in the legal challenge to the federal “plastics ban” being heard on June 25 and 26 at the Federal Court of Appeal. The CCF will be arguing that the federal “plastics ban” is outside the jurisdiction of Parliament’s criminal law power.

In November 2023, a Federal Court of Canada judge struck down the Trudeau government’s Cabinet Order declaring all “plastic manufactured items” as “toxic” under the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Order had been challenged by a coalition of plastics companies who had argued that the Order was unreasonable and unconstitutional.

The appeal of that decision is now being heard at the Federal Court of Appeal. At issue is the scope of the federal law power. Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act grants the federal government exclusive authority to make criminal law. Previous court rulings have found and affirmed that prohibiting truly toxic substances, like lead and mercury, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a legitimate expression of that power. But the criminal law power cannot be used to justify the sweeping inclusion of every imaginable plastic product onto the list of “toxic” substances and therefore under federal authority.

CCF Litigation Director, Christine Van Geyn said: “The criminal law power is not a magical incantation. Invoking the words ‘criminal law’ does not transform any issue into something Ottawa can regulate.”

“In this case, criminal law power should not be allowed to justify the sweeping inclusion of every imaginable plastic product on the list of ‘toxic’ substances and therefore under the umbrella of federal authority,” Van Geyn added “The Cabinet Order plastic ban is outside the scope of the federal power.”

The CCF is intervening in the case to argue about the scope of federal criminal law power. Criminal law powers should be applied cautiously. To claim authority to regulate something based on federal criminal law power, Parliament must clearly demonstrate the criminal aspect of the targeted activities. The federal government cannot assume control over an entire area which is not, in itself, harmful or dangerous. This is particularly important when Parliament has asserted control and jurisdiction over an amorphous subject matter prone to overlapping jurisdictions, like environmental regulation.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is represented in its intervention by Brett Carlson and Rebecca Lang of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.

You can read the CCF’s intervener factum here.