Article content continued

Ontario is doing the same, but Saskatchewan’s case is up first, with court dates set for Feb. 13-14.

So what’s the issue?

What it is not is a debate about whether or not climate change is real and whether or not humans are causing it.

Nor is it particularly about whether or not the carbon tax is an effective means of reducing emissions. The federal government’s court filing contains ample quantities of Liberal talking points and old speeches making this case.

But, that’s not really the legal question at play here. That’s the political one.

“The Attorney General submits that the Court should not be swayed by arguments about the importance of climate change in today’s world,” says Saskatchewan’s filings. “Legislative jurisdiction under our Constitution is not determined by the importance of the matter.”

In brief, this case is about which level of government has jurisdiction to regulate carbon emissions. Or is it shared jurisdiction where the federal government can impose a tax and provinces are free to have carbon policies too? And, if it is the federal government that has jurisdiction, how does the Constitution grant this power?

This is linked to the question of whether or not the carbon tax is … a tax, as opposed to a “levy” and if the federal government has the power to put a tax in place in this circumstance, and with variability across the country.