Article content continued

Photo by Veronica Henri/Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network

The legal issue stems from Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, a legislative innovation unique to the province that provides residents with a month-long consultation on policies that may effect the environment. The Ford government claims this was unnecessary for cap-and-trade since “the recent Ontario election was a process of public participation that was substantially equivalent,” given the prominence carbon dioxide taxes played in the campaign.

It seems an entirely reasonable claim to make. All voters were doubtless aware of Ford’s plans to axe cap-and-trade. He won the election and promptly enacted regulations to end the buying and selling of carbon permits in Ontario. Now Bill 4, which repeals cap-and-trade in its entirety, is currently being debated by the legislature. What purpose can a further consultation period serve when Ontario’s Parliament will vote on it shortly?

It’s not even clear Greenpeace’s argument is sustainable on the finer points of the law. The Environmental Bill of Rights leaves the decision to consult up to the “consideration” of the minister, who is allowed to substitute alternative forms of public discussion. It also exempts from this obligation all policies that are “predominantly financial or administrative in nature.” And what is cap-and-trade if not primarily a financial burden on consumers and businesses?

Photo by THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

Nonetheless, to avoid any possibility of judicial over-reach, Ontario opened a 30-day consultation process immediately after Greenpeace filed its lawsuit. Residents can express their opinions online until Oct. 11. Greenpeace hailed this as “a partial victory.” Whatever. Cap-and-trade no longer exists in the province and to undo this fact, as Greenpeace presumably wishes, would take a supremely heroic act of judicial activism far beyond what has happened with Toronto City Hall.