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?Better then your coal flavoured cola.
But then shamed people here in Ontario?
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?Better then your coal flavoured cola.
You mean when newly privatized Hyrdo people went and made a stupid investment?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?
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.I guess if you imagine you can persuade a judge to your view and thwart the other guy, then judge-made law is an efficient tool of democracy, is that how it works?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 33Again, 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.
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.So 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 to asking the Court to declare the Province was in violation of the existing law, specifically the Charter.
Which it did.
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.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!
Really, but his popularity is higher than Baby Scheers, who now has to contend with Bernier. Bernier will be Trudeau's secret weapon. LOL!!lol yeah... personally I love it every time Trudeau pushes legislation. The more the better. Everything he does fails and reduces his chances of being re-elected.
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.lol yeah... personally I love it every time Trudeau pushes legislation. The more the better. Everything he does fails and reduces his chances of being re-elected.
"If Trudeau gets a good deal in NAFTA..." hahahahahaSheers 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.
How, by renting a room in the Trump hotel?"If Trudeau gets a good deal in NAFTA..." hahahahaha
Ford is doing more to help Canada with NAFTA than Junior is.
At least he's taking one for Team Canada!How, by renting a room in the Trump hotel?
hahahaha
You really think Frod's ass kissing will work?
Not legally possible. Notwithstanding provision only applies to the Charter, not the Constitution Act, 1867.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.
How can you characterize the investment as stupid?You mean when newly privatized Hyrdo people went and made a stupid investment?
Justin would be committing political suicide if he uses the notwithstanding clause to force his carbon tax on OntarioIt 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.
Nonsense.His Royal Rotundness is somehow twisting his mass mess of self into a frickin human pretzel of hypocrisy.