3 ms·

>In a split decision, the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found that climate change poses a real, serious threat to the world — one that’s serious e

>In a split decision, the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found that climate change poses a real, serious threat to the world — one that’s serious enough to allow the federal government to step on some provincial toes. I'm not sure how it's suppose to work but do they base their decisions on personal opinion or the law?

voisin 6y ago
In Canada we have a “notwithstanding” clause in the constitution which allows the Supreme Court to allow for the federal government to contravene elements of the constitution (in this case, the separation of power between federal and provincial levels of government) where something (like climate change) is serious enough to demand the contravention. Yes, everything ultimately comes down to personal opinion, though Supreme Court justices are selected for their ability to consider past precedent and current societal needs. Like the US, some stand more strictly with the past than others. Edit: this article does a better job of explaining it. It isn’t the notwithstanding clause but rather the Peace, Order, and Good Governance clause being used because climate emissions transcend provincial boundaries. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-federal-carbon-tax-constitutional-case-1.5962687 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-federal-carbo...