Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling that Ottawa’s controversial carbon pricing regime is constitutional weighs in at more than 400 pages and delves into complex legal issues that date back to Confederation. But it also reaffirms something strikingly simple: that under the right circumstances, when it really matters, Canada is still allowed to act like, you know, a country.

Wait, you say. Of course Canada is allowed to act like a country. It is a country; a nation with its own government, occupying an internationally recognized territory.

But Canada is also a federation of provinces and territories, all of which have broad jurisdictions that include key areas like health, education and natural resources, and all of which jealously protect a balance of powers that tips in their favour from even the slightest hint of federal interference.

Story continues below advertisement

Which is why six provinces took Ottawa to court over the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. The law, enacted in 2018, obliges the provinces to put a minimum price on their carbon emissions, either through a mechanism of their own choosing, or one imposed by the federal government.

The Trudeau government brought in the law in order to meet Canada’s emissions-reduction commitments under the 2015 Paris climate accord. It had the support of most provinces at the time, and its carbon-pricing regime was carefully crafted as a revenue-neutral backstop. If Ottawa had to tax because the provinces wouldn’t, all monies raised would be returned to provincial taxpayers.

But subsequent changes in government in Alberta and Ontario led to a constitutional challenge to Ottawa’s power to bring in carbon pricing. The challenge raised the eternal Canadian question of how far the federal government can reach into provincial affairs.

The Supreme Court has often leaned in favour of the provinces. For instance, the court said in a 2011 reference ruling that Ottawa can’t establish a pan-Canadian securities regulator, because there was no overriding national concern to justify it – even if having multiple provincial regulators creates a lot of inconvenience and costs for businesses.

In another example, the court ruled in 2019 that the autonomy of the provinces to control their own interests is so vital that they can fine a person for bringing home too many cans of beer from another province.

But this time, six of the court’s nine judges ruled that the threat of climate change is real and that greenhouse gas emissions cause harm across provincial borders, making it a matter of national concern under the Constitution’s “peace, order and good government” clause.

The majority essentially said that Canada as a nation can’t have a hope of meeting its international commitments under the Paris accord if provinces are allowed to exempt themselves from even minimal emissions-reduction standards.

Story continues below advertisement

The ruling is a double relief: because unless Ottawa has the power to act, there can be no national climate strategy; and because putting a price on carbon is generally the most efficient and transparent way of reducing emissions.

The federal carbon tax, currently set at $30 a tonne and rising to $40 in April, has increased the cost of a litre of gasoline and the price of heating a home. But, because the regime is revenue-neutral, most Canadians are getting an annual rebate that is greater than the amount of tax they are paying, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Not only that, but a PBO review of the regime in February of 2020 also said the benefit to taxpayers is progressive, with lower-income households getting larger net rebates that higher-income ones.

In Canada, oil-company executives have long been in favour of carbon taxes. And by sheer coincidence, on the same day as Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, the American Petroleum Institute, the lobby for U.S.-based oil companies, came out in support of the principle of carbon pricing.

But this ruling isn’t just about climate change. It’s at least as much about federal-provincial relations, and critics worry that it opens the door to federal interference into other provincial matters.

That seems unlikely, though, given the Supreme Court’s long-standing record of sensitivity to provincial rights.

Story continues below advertisement

And let’s be serious: If Ottawa didn’t have the power to fight what the Supreme Court called an “undisputed… threat to the future of humanity,” you’d have to wonder just what the threshold would be for it to act like, you know, a country?

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies