Article content continued

In the decision, Richards wrote that the facts presented to the court “confirms that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time. The pressing importance of limiting such emissions is accepted by all of the participants in these proceedings.”

He wrote, “The sole issue before the Court is whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the Act. The issue is not whether GHG pricing should or should not be adopted or whether the Act is effective or fair. Those are questions to be answered by Parliament and by provincial legislatures, not by courts.”

The majority of the court rejected the Saskatchewan government’s arguments, which asserted the Act is invalid because the Governor in Council determines the provinces where it operates, offending the principle of federalism.

“Saskatchewan’s arguments on this front cannot be accepted. The principle of federalism is not a free-standing concept that can override an otherwise validly enacted law. Rather, it is a value to be taken into account when interpreting the Constitution,” wrote Richards. The court also rejected a secondary argument, noting the levies imposed by the Act are regulatory charges, not taxes. “Even if they were taxes, the Act does not offend s. 53. Parliament has clearly and expressly authorized the Governor in Council to decide where the Act will apply.”

In the alternative, the Saskatchewan government argued the Act is unconstitutional because it is concerned with property and civil rights and other matters of a purely local nature falling within exclusive provincial legislative authority, according to Richards’ summary. Ottawa responded by seeking to uphold the Act as a valid exercise of Parliament’s jurisdiction under the national concern branch of its “Peace, Order, and good Government” (POGG) power. “Canada contends it should be recognized, under the national concern branch, as having jurisdiction over ‘the cumulative dimensions of GHG emissions,’ ” wrote Richards. “This approach must be rejected because it would allow Parliament to intrude so deeply into areas of provincial authority that the balance of federalism would be upset. Further, it would hamper and limit provincial efforts to deal with GHG emissions,” he added.