Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Saskabush
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by soulchaser View Post
    No.

    I suspect Sask will appeal.

    If Ontario wins, the feds will appeal. If the feds win, Ontario will appeal.

    If Manitoba wins, the feds will appeal. If the feds win, Manitoba will appeal.

    I assume Alberta will launch a challange and the sam will happen. If Alberta wins the feds will appeal. If the Feds win Alberta will appeal.

    I think this will eventually go before the SCoC where all the provinces will join an fight together
    If just one province wins does that beat this for everyone or just that province? SCC rulings would be country wide correct?
    Lifetime Member PAPRC, SHA
    Member NFA, NRA, SRAC, FMFG, SFC

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,292
    Quote Originally Posted by LB303 View Post
    It's all moot if the CPC gets in
    Not exactly. It also has a chance to set precedent or move the bar for provinces or federal perceived “rights and controls”. If the feds win, then getting their fingers into more provincial areas is a given. O+G industry among the first, DFO even more than now. If the provonces prevail, a smaller shift pushing back on other federal oversight can occur.

    This can affect the decentralization vs centralized power in a lot of ways.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Mark-II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    5,762
    Courts are supposed to rule on matters of law, not pass off opinions on matters of science. That is pure conjecture

    I guarantee that the Liberals would be howling if those statements went against their climate cult, regardless of how the tax ruling went.

    This is a dangerous miscarriage of justice and the result of too many decades of empowering the courts to do the jobs that parliament doesn't want to.
    Schrödinger's Gat - The logical paradox which posits that a firearm, stored safe in the home, is at the same time On The Streets

  4. #14
    Have gun, will travel. Forbes/Hutton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,270
    BUt, the CPC, once in power can simply pass legislation replacing 3 of the judges sitting on the Sask appeals court. What are they going to say.....
    Last edited by Forbes/Hutton; 05-04-2019 at 06:59 PM.
    Remember: the opposite of "Far Right" is Far Wrong.

  5. #15
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    37,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark-II View Post
    Courts are supposed to rule on matters of law, not pass off opinions on matters of science. That is pure conjecture
    Courts do get to decide if it's reliable science or not.
    For example, DNA -- the science had to be proven in court before it was accepted.
    For example, Wendy's junk scientific documents -- the 'science' was rejected by the court.
    There's a long tradition of this, and it's taught in law school, because of the crap that gets presented as expert evidence.

    "A man with one watch knows exactly what time it is. A man with two watches has no idea whatsoever."
    In court, if you have one expert then you accept his opinion as fact. If you have two experts, you have no idea whatsoever.
    (Sometimes, by Law, one expert trumps all others. For example a Chief Building Official in that jurisdiction testifying trumps all other building code inspectors in the world, including his own who did the inspection even if they have more degrees and accreditation. Courts literally must take the CBO's opinion over all others relating to buildings in his jurisdiction. Obviously this is different than Chief Firearms Officers where the Firearms Act specifically says that judges may review CFOs decisions and revoke them if unreasonable, and judges order the CFO to do a different actions.)

    Courts do not conduct research, at least not in court during a trial.

  6. #16
    Canadian ForcesMember Billythreefeathers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vesper Sask
    Posts
    10,674
    Quote Originally Posted by LB303 View Post
    It's all moot WHEN the CPC gets in
    FIFY

  7. The Following User Liked This Post By Billythreefeathers

    TheMerlin (05-04-2019)

  8. #17
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    37,108

    Quebec joins Saskatchewan in carbon tax challenge

    July 9 2019

    In a shocking turn around, François Legault’s Quebec will intervene on behalf of Saskatchewan to challenge the federal carbon tax in the supreme court alongside Premier Scott Moe.

    Quebec would be the latest province to join Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan to challenge the federal government’s levy as unconstitutional.

    The provincial government announced the decision in a press release earlier today.

    “The purpose of this intervention will be to ensure the legal and economic security of the Quebec emission cap and trading system (SPEDE) by ensuring the jurisdiction and jurisdictional autonomy of Quebec in this area,” stated the press release.

    Originally, Quebec praised the federal government’s decision to implement a carbon tax but in what is a total reversal of opinion, the province has now expressed its total opposition to it on the basis of constitutional rights and the security of the province’s cap-and-trade system.

    In 2012, the province had introduced a cap-and-trade plan to fight climate change which costs polluters a little over $20 a tonne. Due to this system, Quebec was able to avoid having the federal government’s ready made carbon tax implemented in the province.

    “It is important for our government to intervene in this debate to ensure that Quebec can defend its position and that it be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Quebec government has shown real leadership in implementing its own carbon exchange,” said Sonia LeBel, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec.

    “He considers that he had acted within his field of competence and will reiterate in his speech the importance of protecting the autonomy of the provinces and their ability to decide for themselves their own fields of competence.”

    According to the Montreal Economic Institute the province of Alberta, which recently abandoned its own carbon tax, would have to pay 50% more than Quebec on carbon.

    In May, Saskatchewan lost its battle against the carbon tax in the Court of Appeal after judges ruled that the federal government’s decision was constitutional, but now the case has been taken all the way to the supreme court.

    https://www.thepostmillennial.com/qu...tax-challenge/

  9. The Following User Liked This Post By RangeBob

    blacksmithden (07-09-2019)

  10. #18
    Señor Member Dewey Cox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Middle East Alberta
    Posts
    2,178
    5 provinces are going to court over this?
    Why would the feds continue to push it?
    It's kind of terrifying.
    Why does the rest of the country get first dibbs on half my income?

  11. #19
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    37,108
    Firearms Act, Supreme Court Reference 2000
    https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../1794/index.do
    1. Alberta
    2. Ontario
    3. Nova Scotia
    4. New Brunswick
    5. Manitoba
    6. Saskatchewan
    7. Northwest Territories
    8. Yukon
    9. Saskatchewan Indian Nations

  12. #20
    Senior Member LB303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    not far enough
    Posts
    4,668
    Why would the other four welcome Quebec's help? I'm suspicious of their motives.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •