The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the federal Liberal government's carbon pricing regime is constitutional, not that it's right, or effective, or anything else. The decision was split 6-3 so what did the three say in dissent & why?The Supreme Court agrees.
Supreme Court rules Ottawa's carbon tax is constitutional
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the federal Liberal government's carbon pricing regime is constitutional — a major decision that allows Ottawa to push ahead with its ambitious plan to ensure every province and territory has a price on carbon to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Some provinces — notably Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan — have forcefully opposed the carbon tax, arguing natural resources are in the provinces' jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Chief Justice Richard Wagner, writing for the majority, said the federal government is free to impose minimum pricing standards because the threat of climate change is so great that it demands a co-ordinated national approach.
Supreme Court rules Ottawa's carbon tax is constitutional | CBC News
Justice Suzanne Cote dissented in part, agreeing climate change is an issue of national concern but taking issue with the power the federal cabinet gave itself to adjust the law’s scope, including which fuels the price would apply to.
Justices Malcolm Rowe and Russell Brown dissented with the entire decision, arguing Canada had not shown climate change reaches the level of national concern. They objected the precedent the majority’s decision sets would allow Ottawa to set minimum national standards in all areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Last edited:
