The fed's have the right to introduce national protections

First, there is nothing unusual about a dissenting judgment in important constitutional cases such as this. Since 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld three different federal environmental laws that were challenged, with a dissent in each case. It is the norm.

Second, the majority and dissenting judges in Saskatchewan actually agreed that the federal government has the constitutional power to price carbon. They also agreed that carbon pricing is effective. Where they differed was about the constitutional basis for the federal power.

The majority held that Parliament has jurisdiction to price carbon as a matter of national concern under its residual Peace, Order, and Good Government power – because “climate change is a global problem” and “greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions don’t respect provincial boundaries.” They found the carbon pricing law is a “regulatory charge,” not a “tax,” largely because Parliament is returning all the revenues to taxpayers.

Saskatchewan’s highest court ruled in favour of carbon pricing – and it wasn’t really close on key issues

link https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-saskatchewans-highest-court-ruled-in-favour-of-carbon-pricing-and/?fbclid=IwAR1w9AnoSDDqf1wmPyWSFQkeJMf4rNbB9y8kocdO_0g_hrjptHWxVsD7hRk