The Supreme Court’s carbon tax decision reflects history, says the professor.



A recent carbon tax ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada dates back to 1973, when then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stepped up the use of SCC to strengthen Ottawa’s grip, said Ted Morton, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Calgary. Morton says.

In his 2020 book, The Moment of Truth: How to Think About Alberta’s Future, Morton appointed Boraraskin to the Supreme Court in 1973 because Trudeau was “a well-known defender of broader federal power.” Claims.

In the future, Ruskin broke the state laws of Saskatchewan and Alberta dealing with the development of potash and oil.

The Prime Ministers of Alberta and Saskatchewan were afraid that the courts would act even more powerfully to revoke state jurisdiction when Trudeau proposed a new constitution. As a result, they rallyed other prime ministers to insist on a “despite clause” that overturned awkward judicial decisions over state jurisdiction.

Former Alberta Minister Morton advised the Alberta government that the clause applies only to constitutional decisions and therefore cannot be used successfully against the recent SCC’s decision that carbon taxes are constitutional. I told the Epoch Times that I did.

“How to balance this depends on where you are sitting, and it is not driven by law. It is the very obvious way I say, regional, centralized in the Supreme Court. Check the bias, “he said.

“Chief Justice said climate change is an existential threat … so he intends to support and control the carbon tax, but if you’re sitting in Edmonton, you have an office tower I know how empty it is, no one is downtown. Like Calgary, what has happened in the last six years is an existential threat to the future of Western Canada, certainly Alberta. I understand this.”

Barry Cooper, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, said the ruling shows SCC’s pro-Ottawa, anti-Western prejudice, and believes that the western side of oil production is in a difficult position. ..

“This is another step that pushes the western states of Saskatchewan and Alberta into corners where they are less and less capable of protecting the interests of their citizens,” he said in an interview.

“And it will get worse, it won’t get better. That is, it’s rude for the Supreme Court of Canada to do this. I just wondered what came to my mind.”

Judge Russell Braun disagreed and warned that the 6-3 decision would have widespread consequences.

“This is a model of federalism that rejects our constitution and rewrites the rules of the Union,” Brown wrote.

“The effect is [carbon tax law]Opens the door to federal invasion of all areas of the state’s jurisdiction, including trade and commerce within the state, health, and management of natural resources. It must bring serious tension to the Commonwealth. “

Judge Malcolm Rowe agrees with Brown and writes:[T]The doctrine of national concern is the remnant power of last resort, “the misuse made the law unconstitutional.

Judge Suzanne Côte said Congress could set carbon prices, but allowing the federal cabinet to do so would be “independently unconstitutional.”

Cooper believes that the majority of judges’ decisions support the Western Separation claim.

“They were acting irresponsibly because it certainly makes it much easier. [us] Independent people in Alberta convey the message. You can’t trust institutions in central Canada. That is the message they are sending. “

Cooper suggests that the Supreme Court has always been a federal agent.

“Sir John A’s establishment of the Supreme Court was basically deliberate to force the court to make decisions he did not want.”

In his 1983 essay, “The Origins of Judicial Review in Canada,” Professor Jennifer Smith of the University of Dalhousie argued that “the narrow partisan function McDonald’s envisioned in the New Supreme Court in 1875.” This partisanship meant that federal interests took precedence over state interests.

“Only its long-standing reputation for courts and independents was able to tame the state aggression without fierce controversy. In contrast, the central government could experience the embarrassment of an unfavorable ruling in exercising legislative power. The assumption of low sex remained unstated. ”

Morton needs to mobilize other prime ministers for Alberta’s Prime Minister Jason Kenny to support state jurisdiction over resources, and federal conservative leader Erin O’Toole is these constitutionally, especially in the west. I believe we must uphold respect for our rights.

“People are asking me, should they vote for Mavericks rather than conservative? I say no. It is imperative to do everything possible to defeat Trudeau.” Morton said.

“But if the Conservatives, especially their leaders, don’t explicitly promise to bring West Canada oil to the global market at global prices, and spend the entire election on Ontario and Quebec, then As long as you support the Federal Conservative Party. “

By Ana Banuelos

Ana is a blogger who is always fascinated with the technology and the amount of knowledge she can gather from the internet. She is trying to nerdify everyone around her with that same knowledge, through her writings.