Historic in its meaningless I suppose.
Memo for ya @PremierScottMoe: your problem is not w/ the scope & breadth of your own legislative authority, which this bill largely just restates, but w/ the fed’s authority. Alas, try as you might, you can’t change that — no prov. can.
Memo for ya @PremierScottMoe: your problem is not w/ the scope & breadth of your own legislative authority, which this bill largely just restates, but w/ the fed’s authority. Alas, try as you might, you can’t change that — no prov. can.
https://twitter.com/PremierScottMoe/status/1587616843979972608
The SCC has been clear: the environment is a matter of shared jurisdiction. It falls under the legislative authority of both levels of gov’t. #skpoli can affect it through s. 92 & 92A, but the feds also have jurisdiction under 91: fisheries, navigation, transboundary effects.
If GHGs weren’t the cause of climate change, which in turn is one of the most sig. challenges facing humanity, we wldn’t be having this conversation. But they are (a fact SK didn’t contest in GGPPA Ref), which means the feds have all kinds of legislative authority. Sorry mate. 
Anyway, here’s a free mark-up of Part I @PremierScottMoe! TLDR you don’t get to declare federal laws as inapplicable & unconstitutional — that’s the courts’ job. You can also “assert” interjurisdictional immunity all you want — again, that’s a doctrinal Q for the courts! #skpoli
Indeed — SK has been *asking* the courts for some kind of interjurisdictional immunity doctrine for a long time. But the SCC has consistently rejected the idea — going back 30 years! ablawg.ca/2019/05/24/set…
And no Scott — the provinces’ ownership of their resources (
https://twitter.com/premierscottmoe/status/1587837268601044993?s=46&t=va7wegWIF2AMdnI6cfIugg) doesn’t preclude the applicability of federal legislation — that was settled almost a century ago: canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
