You mean the coal the Liberals invested in when they bought that plant in the US which was the biggest pollution generating plant in the mid-west?
But then shamed people here in Ontario?
Ontario gov launches constitutional court challenge against federal 'carbon tax'
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
But then shamed people here in Ontario?
In the case of the Charter, provinces came together with the Federal government to agree to a set of principles which, if courts interpreted them in a way not intended by those jurisdictions, could be overridden by an elected government. That was the deal.
In the case of the Constitution Act, 1867, jurisdictions that became provinces came together to define and form a federal government and define a relationship between provinces and that government, with no ability for any of those jurisdictions to unilaterally override that agreement under any circumstances. That was the deal.
See the difference?
Haven't you forgotten the Federal power of disallowance in that summary? Regardless, it's still a deflection that ignores the original question, but I can well understand why you preferred not to answer.
I haven't forgotten it, it just has no application to the analysis. The Federal power to instruct a Provincial Lieutenant Governor not to give assent to legislation has nothing to do with the Federal government attempting to legislate in the Provincial sphere. That power can't save such a federal law.
It still provides the lawful authority for a 'senior' government to meddle with a 'junior' one, just as Queens Park has meddled with City Hall. Its use would surely have this or any Province's lawyers scrambling into the courts to petition an appointed judge to disallow the disallowance, just as the City did a week ago, to the vociferous and loudly proclaimed outrage of Premier Ford.
Whose government lawyers are currently doing exactly what he so stoutly decried, in the Court action this thread's about: Begging a judge to protect their client from the acts of a majority government.
Again, the carbon tax legislation challenge is based on the division of powers set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. There is no "notwithstanding provision" in that Act. If a court finds that the Federal government has overstepped its constitutional mandate, the "disallow" provision in the Act can't operate to save it. That's what the Province's court challenge is about.
The only possible comparative relevance would be if the Feds were to use the "disallow" provision to prevent Provincial law from coming into force. I suppose, in theory, they could try that for any provincial law, including Bill 5, but what possible legitimate interest would the Federal government have in the administration of the City of Toronto? Much more likely for the Feds to use this as a way of preventing a law of dubious provincial jurisdiction from coming into force pending a court challenge.
However, since the "disallow" provision predates the Statute of Westminster, and hasn't been used since, I'm sure the courts would conduct a long and careful examination of the modern relevance and applicability of a provision intended to reserve some authority of the Crown over the colonies.
You've gotten way off track since your Constitution mini-Seminar in post 23 where you over-broadly asserted there was no power of one jurisdiction over another. We've now clarified that, and we're back to the topic. Which is neither Disallowance, nor Sectoion 33
All Doug is doing is asking the Court to declare the Feds in violation of the existing law, specifically the Constitution. And all the City was doing was asking the Court to declare the Province was in violation of the existing law, specifically the Charter.
Which it did.
Somehow, in the Through the Looking Glass World of Doug, it's entirely appropriate for Doug to do what he most vehemently and disparagingly condemned as inappropriate for the City (and the private citizens who joined the action) to do because itt was counter to the basic principle of democracy. But when he does likewise, he barefacedly claims that he's defending democracy.
Clearly the word's just a few meaningless syllables to him.
Contrary to your earlier post, the Federal Gov't is not the Father and the Provinces the Children. The territories which became provinces pre-existed Canada. They came together to form the previously non-existent Federal Government. But in order to agree to do so, everyone had to agree that certain matters were beyond the legislative authority of the Federal government. The Province is seeking to enforce that agreement, enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1867. One of the oldest principles of the law remains - a deal is a deal.
By stark contrast, the City of Toronto and the Province negotiated nothing of the relationship between them. The City exists only at the will of the Province. It is one administrative arrangement, among many others, relating to its authority and responsibility for all things provincial. The Toronto Council dispute is more analogous to the following:
Parents allow their child to continue to live with them as a adult, and being nice people, they treat the child well and even consult the child on decisions that might affect them. Then, one day, they reach a decision the child doesn't like. The response of the child? To sue the parent for being unfair!
I am sorry, between my penchant for 'improving' my sometimes hasty posts, and the search for replacement mouse batteries, I overlooked that somewhere down the thread you might already be replying to my first partial thought. My apologies for leading you where you would likely not have gone if I'd had my act better together.
Thanks for your response. It does make a valid point although not directly counter to mine, just as mine doesn't really answer yours. And I'm not sure I haven't un-sequenced us too far to get back into line. I suggest we focus on our dinners for the next while; we can always pick this up tomorrow, or later in the evening, if reflection suggests there's anything further to add.
It will be pretty funny if the court rules against Trudeau and he uses the notwithstanding clause to shove it down Fords throat. Especially now that Ford has shown his willingness to use it. He just fucked himself and has no idea that he did.
Really, but his popularity is higher than Baby Scheers, who now has to contend with Bernier. Bernier will be Trudeau's secret weapon. LOL!!
Sheers magnetic personality has split the right. So Trudeau build a pipeline and then mothball it and still probably win..lol. All Bernier has to do is take 3-5% of the conservative vote and its game over. If Trudeau gets a good deal in NAFTA he will steamroll Sheer.
"If Trudeau gets a good deal in NAFTA..." hahahahaha
Ford is doing more to help Canada with NAFTA than Junior is.
How, by renting a room in the Trump hotel?
hahahaha
You really think Frod's ass kissing will work?
At least he's taking one for Team Canada!
Especially Trump's bunghole. According to the NYTimes, it has been everywhere in Russia?
:apathy:
Not legally possible. Notwithstanding provision only applies to the Charter, not the Constitution Act, 1867.
How can you characterize the investment as stupid?
Do you know the projected IRR?
Justin would be committing political suicide if he uses the notwithstanding clause to force his carbon tax on Ontario
that would ensure a PC majority in the 2019 election and a new view on the issue
So yeah that would be funny
Apparently Ford has thought this through, while you have not
Nonsense.
There are serious doubts about whether Trudeau has the legal authority to impose a selective tax that is only applied to some provinces and not others.
https://business.financialpost.com/...-if-his-carbon-tax-backstop-is-actually-legal
By contrast, there has never been any doubt that Ford has the legal authority to cut the size of Toronto council.
And the appeal court said yesterday -- in plain English -- that Ford will almost certainly win his case on appeal because the "Charter" argument that was used to strike down his legislation was a load of horseshit.
Two completely different things. One is a legitimate question about Charter rights, the other was nonsense.
