RE:Canadian Supreme Court Finding The federal government has the right to impose minimum carbon-pricing standards on the provinces, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in upholding the centrepiece of the Liberals’ climate change plan.
In a 6-3 decision, the court stressed Ottawa’s authority under Canada’s 1867 Constitution to legislate on matters of national concern, and the provinces’ inability to fight global warming effectively on their own.
The majority ruling, written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner, described climate change as “a threat of the highest order to the country, and indeed the world. This context, on its own, provides some assurance that … Canada is not seeking to invoke the national concern doctrine too lightly. The undisputed existence of a threat to the future of humanity cannot be ignored.”
It added: “A provincial failure to act directly threatens Canada as a whole.” Canada would not be able to push for global action on climate change if provinces were not cooperating in the fight against it, the majority said.
The dissenters were Justice Suzanne Ct, Justice Russell Brown and Justice Malcolm Rowe. Justice Ct said the federal carbon-pricing law gives too much discretion to cabinet. Justice Brown and Justice Rowe said Ottawa had strayed into provincial jurisdiction, and that the national concern power is to be reserved for matters in which the provinces have no legislative authority. They said a provincial matter cannot be transformed into a national one simply by invoking minimum national standards.
A 2018 federal law required provinces to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to the warming of the planet. The idea was that the cost would discourage businesses and consumers from generating such pollutants. Provinces are free to develop their own pricing systems, as long as they meet the minimum federal standard.
The case tested Canada’s ability as a federal state to address climate change, described by a lower court as an existential threat to human civilization and the global ecosystem.
The federal government developed the law with the agreement of most provinces in order to meet the country’s obligations under the 2015 Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit the increase in the Earth’s surface temperatures to 1.5 degrees by 2050. But provincial elections led to changes in government, and ultimately six provinces opposed the carbon-pricing law at the Supreme Court.
The fight over the law led to one of the most important federalism cases in Canadian history. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick argued that Ottawa had encroached on their jurisdiction. Alberta went so far as to tell the Supreme Court that Canada’s future as a federal state – one in which the central government works collaboratively with the provinces – was imperiled. Ottawa argued that the central government must be able to address national and global crises. British Columbia intervened in support of the law. None of the provinces disputed the existence of climate change.
Global warming was not an issue when Canada’s founding Constitution was created in 1867. The environment is generally seen as a shared responsibility between the provinces and Ottawa. In 1982, the Constitution was amended to spell out provincial jurisdiction over the development of natural resources within their boundaries. But the 1867 Constitution says Ottawa has the authority to legislate on matters of national concern that are not explicitly mentioned in the founding document.
The carbon-pricing law case began when Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario asked their courts of appeal for an opinion on the constitutionality of the law. Such a case is known as a reference, and the court’s opinion is only advisory. The three appeal courts were split: Ontario’s ruled 4-1 to uphold the law, Saskatchewan’s upheld it in a 3-2 vote, but Alberta’s ruled 4-1 that the law is unconstitutional. Appeals of those rulings brought the case to the Supreme Court.
Alberta Chief Justice Catherine Fraser, writing for three of the four judges in the appeal-court majority, called the federal law a “constitutional Trojan horse,” adding: “Almost every aspect of the provinces’ development and management of their natural resources, all provincial industries and every action of citizens in a province would be subject to federal regulation to reduce GHG emissions.”
More than two dozen groups, including those representing Indigenous peoples, environmental organizations and taxpayers, intervened at the Supreme Court on both sides of the law.
The manifestations of climate change on Canada include major wildfires in Alberta in 2016 and in B.C. in 2017 and 2018, as well as destructive floods in Ontario and Quebec in 2017 and in B.C., Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick the following year, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2019 carbon-pricing ruling, which cited “uncontested evidence.
"The federal government has the right to impose minimum carbon-pricing standards on the provinces, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in upholding the centrepiece of the Liberals’ climate change plan.
In a 6-3 decision, the court stressed Ottawa’s authority under Canada’s 1867 Constitution to legislate on matters of national concern, and the provinces’ inability to fight global warming effectively on their own.
The majority ruling, written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner, described climate change as “a threat of the highest order to the country, and indeed the world. This context, on its own, provides some assurance that … Canada is not seeking to invoke the national concern doctrine too lightly. The undisputed existence of a threat to the future of humanity cannot be ignored.”
It added: “A provincial failure to act directly threatens Canada as a whole.” Canada would not be able to push for global action on climate change if provinces were not cooperating in the fight against it, the majority said.
The dissenters were Justice Suzanne Ct, Justice Russell Brown and Justice Malcolm Rowe. Justice Ct said the federal carbon-pricing law gives too much discretion to cabinet. Justice Brown and Justice Rowe said Ottawa had strayed into provincial jurisdiction, and that the national concern power is to be reserved for matters in which the provinces have no legislative authority. They said a provincial matter cannot be transformed into a national one simply by invoking minimum national standards.
A 2018 federal law required provinces to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to the warming of the planet. The idea was that the cost would discourage businesses and consumers from generating such pollutants. Provinces are free to develop their own pricing systems, as long as they meet the minimum federal standard.
The case tested Canada’s ability as a federal state to address climate change, described by a lower court as an existential threat to human civilization and the global ecosystem.
The federal government developed the law with the agreement of most provinces in order to meet the country’s obligations under the 2015 Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit the increase in the Earth’s surface temperatures to 1.5 degrees by 2050. But provincial elections led to changes in government, and ultimately six provinces opposed the carbon-pricing law at the Supreme Court.
The fight over the law led to one of the most important federalism cases in Canadian history. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick argued that Ottawa had encroached on their jurisdiction. Alberta went so far as to tell the Supreme Court that Canada’s future as a federal state – one in which the central government works collaboratively with the provinces – was imperiled. Ottawa argued that the central government must be able to address national and global crises. British Columbia intervened in support of the law. None of the provinces disputed the existence of climate change.
Global warming was not an issue when Canada’s founding Constitution was created in 1867. The environment is generally seen as a shared responsibility between the provinces and Ottawa. In 1982, the Constitution was amended to spell out provincial jurisdiction over the development of natural resources within their boundaries. But the 1867 Constitution says Ottawa has the authority to legislate on matters of national concern that are not explicitly mentioned in the founding document.
The carbon-pricing law case began when Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario asked their courts of appeal for an opinion on the constitutionality of the law. Such a case is known as a reference, and the court’s opinion is only advisory. The three appeal courts were split: Ontario’s ruled 4-1 to uphold the law, Saskatchewan’s upheld it in a 3-2 vote, but Alberta’s ruled 4-1 that the law is unconstitutional. Appeals of those rulings brought the case to the Supreme Court.
Alberta Chief Justice Catherine Fraser, writing for three of the four judges in the appeal-court majority, called the federal law a “constitutional Trojan horse,” adding: “Almost every aspect of the provinces’ development and management of their natural resources, all provincial industries and every action of citizens in a province would be subject to federal regulation to reduce GHG emissions.”
More than two dozen groups, including those representing Indigenous peoples, environmental organizations and taxpayers, intervened at the Supreme Court on both sides of the law.
The manifestations of climate change on Canada include major wildfires in Alberta in 2016 and in B.C. in 2017 and 2018, as well as destructive floods in Ontario and Quebec in 2017 and in B.C., Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick the following year, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2019 carbon-pricing ruling, which cited “uncontested evidence.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadas-carbon-tax-is-constitutional-supreme-court-rules/