Five things to know about carbon pricing and the Supreme Court ruling

Advertisement

Advertise with us

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada issued a 6-3 decision upholding the federal carbon price legislation Thursday.

Read this article for free:


or

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Subscribe and receive a limited-edition Free Press branded hat or tote.

Digital Subscription

One year of digital access for only $205*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*First annual payment billed as $205.00 + GST for one year. This annual subscription will automatically renew at $233.00 + GST every 52 weeks (10% off the regular annual price of $259.35). Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional

$1 for the first 4 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles
Start now

*Your next Brandon Sun subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $17.95 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.95 plus GST every four weeks.

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 25/03/2021 (2004 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada issued a 6-3 decision upholding the federal carbon price legislation Thursday.

Here are five things to know about the decision and the carbon price.

1. What was the Supreme Court case about and what did the court say?

A pickup truck passes in front of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Thursday, March 25, 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
A pickup truck passes in front of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Thursday, March 25, 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

Ottawa developed the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in 2018, to set a minimum price for emissions across the country. Provinces and territories can adopt the federal system, or put forward their own version as long as it meets the federal standard.

Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan challenged the law in court saying it infringed on provincial jurisdiction. Appeals courts in Ontario and Saskatchewan upheld the law in 2019, and in 2020 the Alberta Court of Appeal struck it down.

The Supreme Court of Canada majority decision Thursday said because climate change is a massive threat to this country and the world, and because the impact of greenhouse gas emissions transcends provincial borders, the carbon price is a matter of national interest and therefore constitutional.

2. What did the dissenting judges say?

It was not a unanimous decision. Justice Suzanne Cote partially dissented, saying while she felt the federal government had a constitutional right to set a minimum price on pollution, the law gives cabinet too much power to change the scope of the standard on its own.

Justice Malcolm Rowe and Justice Russell Brown both dissented in full, saying the entire law was unconstitutional because the power to manage emissions falls entirely within provincial jurisdiction.

3. What happens now?

The federal government continues with its climate action plan, which rests heavily on the carbon price. An analysis a few years ago estimated the carbon price at $50 a tonne, would eliminate about 90 million tonnes of emissions, or 40 per cent of the cuts Canada needs to make to get to its current Paris climate agreement targets.

Provinces that have the federal system can now decide if they want to keep it or implement their own version. All the affected provinces said they respected the court’s decision even though they disagreed with it. Saskatchewan immediately moved to work on its own system, while Alberta and Ontario haven’t yet said what they plan to do.

Manitoba, the only other province currently under the federal carbon price system, is continuing its own challenge of the law in federal court. There is no date set yet for that case.

4. What is the carbon price currently?

The national standard for the carbon price is based on how many emissions a specific fuel emits when burned. The price is now $30 per tonne of emissions, but that is rising to $40 on April 1. As of next week, it will add 8.8 cents to every litre of gasoline, or about $3.50 to fill a 40-litre tank, and about $15 on a monthly natural gas bill.

It will rise to $50 a tonne in April 2022, and then by $15 a year until it reaches $170 a tonne in 2030.

British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador all have a carbon levy that meets the minimum price and works a little differently depending on the province.

Quebec has a cap-and-trade system where emitters can buy and sell credits based on their emissions over or under a set cap.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario all pay the federal carbon levy.

A separate federal system for big industrial emitters, where the price applies on a portion of what is emitted rather than on the purchase of fuels, applies in full only in Manitoba and P.E.I. Every other province has their own version. Saskatchewan has the federal system applied only on electricity generators and pipelines, but plans to bring those under the provincial system now as well.

5. How does the carbon price work?

The idea of a carbon price is to make it more expensive to pollute, therefore providing an incentive to find ways to produce fewer emissions, be it as an individual or a company.

Canada returns 90 per cent of the revenues from the federal carbon price to individual families in the affected provinces through income tax rebates. The other 10 per cent goes to grants to smaller businesses, schools, hospitals and municipalities for reducing their carbon footprint.

Most individuals will get a bigger rebate than they pay in carbon tax, but heavier emitters will not. Despite the rebate, intended to keep the carbon price from raising the overall cost of living, there is still an incentive to cut your emissions because if you burn less fuel you will still save more money. The less fuel you buy, the less you pay, and you still get the tax rebate regardless.

Choosing public transit rather than driving a car to work, installing a better furnace or more energy efficient windows or buying a more efficient car, would all be things that would allow an individual to buy less gasoline, natural gas or home heating oil and, therefore, pay less carbon tax and produce fewer emissions.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 25, 2021.

Report Error Submit a Tip

More Stories

Canada-U.S. trade relationship is broken, but the damage can — and will — be repaired

Tom Brodbeck 5 minute read Preview

Canada-U.S. trade relationship is broken, but the damage can — and will — be repaired

Tom Brodbeck 5 minute read Thursday, Sep. 17, 2026

Canada needs to get serious about diversifying its trade beyond the United States. But at the same time, Canadians should expect relations with the U.S. to normalize after Donald Trump is no longer in the White House.

For generations, Canada-U.S. trade was considered almost a fact of geography. The two countries share the world’s longest undefended border, deeply integrated supply chains and a century of commercial relationships.

Canadian manufacturers depend on American customers. American manufacturers depend on Canadian suppliers. Energy, agriculture, automotive production and countless other industries operate across the border as though it barely exists.

That isn’t going to change dramatically, even in the midst of a bitter trade war unleashed by the U.S. president.

Read
Thursday, Sep. 17, 2026

Hellebuyck standoff caused by… Nathan MacKinnon?

Mike McIntyre 6 minute read Preview

Hellebuyck standoff caused by… Nathan MacKinnon?

Mike McIntyre 6 minute read Yesterday at 6:34 PM CDT

Looking for someone to blame in the Connor Hellebuyck fiasco and cast as public enemy No. 1? How about long-time Winnipeg Jets nemesis Nathan MacKinnon?

Allow us to explain as we fire up the time machine and head back to February in Italy.

Oh, what could have been if MacKinnon had been able to score on what appeared to be an open net late in the third period of the men’s gold medal game with Hellebuyck down and seemingly out of position.

Instead, the star forward fired wide, keeping the score deadlocked at 1-1 as the clock ticked down on regulation.

Read
Yesterday at 6:34 PM CDT

Today’s horoscope

Georgia Nicols 4 minute read Preview

Today’s horoscope

Georgia Nicols 4 minute read 2:01 AM CDT

MOON ALERT: After 12:15 a.m., there are no restrictions to shopping or important decisions today. The moon is in Capricorn.

ARIES (March 21-April 19)

This is a tricky day. Don’t be too ambitious. It’s totally OK to kick back and relax. But be aware that communications with parents and authority figures might be confused, vague or subject to misunderstandings. Nevertheless, romance is sweet and cosy!

TAURUS (April 20-May 20)

Read
2:01 AM CDT

A Winnipeg lawyer has been disbarred after admitting to six counts of professional misconduct and two counts of providing incompetent service involving eight clients.

The career-ending decision marks the sixth time Gisele Champagne has been disciplined by the Law Society of Manitoba since she was called to the bar in 1992.

“Disbarment is the appropriate remedy when a lawyer has demonstrated a repeated pattern of conduct that violates professional standards,” a law society panel said in a written decision released Wednesday.

“A lawyer who has been unable to learn from past discipline proceedings to fulfill his or her obligation to provide ethical and high-quality legal services must at some point lose the privilege of practising law.”

Jets GM insists club’s not working under any deadline in netminder’s trade request

Mike McIntyre 7 minute read Preview

Jets GM insists club’s not working under any deadline in netminder’s trade request

Mike McIntyre 7 minute read Thursday, Sep. 17, 2026

Connor Hellebuyck and his family were subject to so much post-Olympic vitriol that both the Winnipeg Jets security team and even police had to get involved.

Read
Thursday, Sep. 17, 2026

Not falling back means time loop remains unclosed

Jen Zoratti 4 minute read 2:01 AM CDT

I demand restitution. Where’s my hour?

In the traditional fall-back, spring-forward time change set up — you know, ol’ trusty that’s been effect for lo these 63 years — we lost an hour in the spring that we got back in the fall.

That was the social contract: you commit to feeling like you’re on cold medication for a week in March because you know a glorious extra hour of sleep will be returned to you in November. (Unless, of course, you have little kids, but look: we all make our choices.)

Well, that transaction, flawed as it was, isn’t happening this year. That hour you sacrificed to the sun gods in the spring? Gone. Not coming back. We’ve sprung forward and we shan’t be falling back — not in November, and (possibly) not ever. The scale shall remain unbalanced and the loop shall remain unclosed as Manitoba has adopted permanent daylight time.