6-3 decision.
I'm reading it now.
Per Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Martin and Kasirer JJ.: The
GGPPA is constitutional. It sets minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. Parliament has jurisdiction to enact this law as a matter of national concern under the peace, order, and good government (“POGG”) clause of
s. 91 of the
Constitution Act, 1867.
Arguably decision should read 6-1-2.
****
First key point: (from the decision)
Applying the threshold question, Canada has adduced evidence that clearly shows that establishing minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions is of sufficient concern to Canada as a whole that it warrants consideration in accordance with the national concern doctrine
Second key point
:
Although the matter has a clear impact on provincial jurisdiction, its impact on the provinces’ freedom to legislate and on areas of life that would fall under provincial heads of power is qualified and limited
Third key point:
As a final matter, the fuel and excess emission charges imposed by the GGPPA have a sufficient nexus with the regulatory scheme to be considered constitutionally valid regulatory charges. To be a regulatory charge, as opposed to a tax, a governmental levy with the characteristics of a tax must be connected to a regulatory scheme.
****
Next is Justice Cote:
Per Côté J. (dissenting in part): There is agreement with the majority with respect to the formulation of the national concern test. There is also agreement that Parliament has the power to enact constitutionally valid legislation establishing minimum national standards of price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. However, the GGPPA is, in its current form, unconstitutional. It cannot be said to accord with the matter of national concern formulated by the majority because the breadth of the discretion that it confers on the Governor in Council results in no meaningful limits on the power of the executive. Minimum standards are set by the executive, not the GGPPA. Additionally, the provisions in the GGPPA that permit the Governor in Council to amend and override the GGPPA violate the Constitution Act, 1867, and the fundamental constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law and the separation of powers. Clauses that purport to confer on the executive branch the power to nullify or amend Acts of Parliament are unconstitutional.
****
For the full dissent:
Per Justice Brown:
The key arguments are:
The Act’s backstop model is therefore constitutionally impossible: if the provinces have jurisdiction to do what the Act does, then the Act cannot be constitutional under the national concern branch of POGG. This demonstrates that Parliament has legislated in respect of a matter that falls within provincial legislative authority.
Responsibility for the reduction of GHG emissions among the provinces can therefore be readily identified for regulation at the source of the emissions. Nationwide GHG emissions are nothing more than the sum of provincial and territorial GHG emissions. The reduction of GHG emissions therefore lacks the degree of unity required to qualify as an indivisible matter of national concern