The latest assault on the economy and political life of the prairie west by our infantile prime minister and the religious fanatic he has elevated to the post of environment minister, are a promise of things to come: fewer options..Quite properly, the draft federal Clean Electricity Regulations announced by Steven Guilbeault have been summarily rejected by Premiers Moe and Smith. The criminal penalties proposed by his colleague, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, were also dismissed..Smith said Alberta “will never allow these regulations to be implemented here – full stop.” Moe added Saskatchewan would do “what’s possible, versus an ideological policy that may come from another level of government.”.As an afterthought, Smith said Alberta would “assert our rights under the constitution” so that Monsieur Guilbeault could “pound sand.”.The question of the constitutionality of the Laurentian government’s environmental regulations has come up several times by commentators seeking to defend the jurisdictional responsibilities of the prairie provinces..Usually section 92A is cited, particularly as regards the “development, conservation and management” of facilities “for the generation and production of electricity,” which is given “exclusively” to the provinces..Looks pretty clear, so that normal people would conclude that the Laurentians once again are engaging in what the Alberta Court of Appeal called “federal overreach” and “confiscation.” Normal people, however, do not sit on the Supreme Court of Canada..From the beginning, in 1875, critics of the Court have focussed on its being a creature of the central government. One of the reasons for its creation back then was that exercising the legal ability of the central government to disallow provincial legislation brought political costs with it..By establishing a court that looked to be independent of the central government, the new institution would be immune to paying such costs. It was all about the law, you see, not politics at all. The pretense worked well for many years..In 1949, with the end of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, and especially after the 1982 Constitutional Act, this argument became increasingly detached from political reality..The chief reason for the change came from what we usually call judicial activism. This term refers to the tendency of those sitting on the Court to grant themselves greater wisdom than their traditionally “restrained” predecessors. And with greater wisdom, of course, came assertions of greater (and final) power..The majesty of the law, as understood today by the scarlet-and-ermine-clad lawyers on the court, contains no reason to 'defer,' as their predecessors had, to anyone, certainly not to a vulgar prairie legislature..Today there can be no serious criticism of the notion the Supreme Court of Canada is an agent of the central executive, the federal Laurentian cabinet..We have all seen a pattern in the rulings of the Supreme Court in recent years that upheld the priority of Ottawa over the provinces, especially the prairie provinces..In fact, this has gone on for at least the past three generations. Many observers have noted that, though the term 'environment' does not even appear in the constitution, the Supreme Court has conjured it into being as something called a “shared jurisdiction.”.This was preliminary to apportioning the shares. And who says who gets the biggest share? One guess..The Liberal government is counting on the judiciary doing their dirty work once again..Guilbeault and the others fully expect the Court to rule in their favour, just as they did with the 2001 Carbon Tax case. Moreover, back then, chief justice Richard Wagner opined from the bench just what Guilbeault and Trudeau would have wanted: anthropogenic climate change has become an existential threat to all humanity, which thereby justifies just about anything the centralizing Laurentians want..Normal people would call his hysterical remarks evidence of panic, not wisdom..The Laurentians on the bench and in Parliament may be misguided, even malicious, but they are not politically stupid. Let us therefore agree that, if matters follow precedent, the Government of Canada will prevail over the prairie provinces..But then what?.Two things are likely to happen in the short term and a third is still a way down the road..First, the Liberal government will make the resistance of Alberta and Saskatchewan a major issue in the next federal election..Look for them to vilify the Conservatives and Poilievre on the ever-fraudulent national unity question. CBC has already begun the process against Poilievre..This means, very simply, the Liberals will champion the Laurentians against us. Nothing new there, of course. Moreover, it would be naïve to think that they do not stand a good chance of winning. It’s worked before; why won’t it work again?.Second, in response to the current assault, if the prairie premiers invoke the Saskatchewan First Act and the Sovereignty Act, this will simply confirm the winning strategy of the Liberal Laurentians..They took the first step with the new regulations, having one eye on the next election and fully expecting a firm response from Saskatchewan and Alberta. So far, it’s working..And then, as a corollary to stage two, look for the courts to rule in favour of the central government, dismissing provincial defences against Laurentian tyranny as being illegal: good-bye Sovereignty Act; good-bye Saskatchewan First Act..This brings up the third consequence, which was indicated in my opening question: how much more will it take to exit a political arrangement characterized by endless Laurentian abuse?.As the Psalmist wrote: “how long, O Lord, how long?”.Obviously, no one knows. But if Smith and Moe are not pondering the implications of how seriously to resist, let alone to counter, the implications of the latest Laurentian assault, they can be certain that others, made of sterner stuff, are waiting to replace them.
The latest assault on the economy and political life of the prairie west by our infantile prime minister and the religious fanatic he has elevated to the post of environment minister, are a promise of things to come: fewer options..Quite properly, the draft federal Clean Electricity Regulations announced by Steven Guilbeault have been summarily rejected by Premiers Moe and Smith. The criminal penalties proposed by his colleague, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, were also dismissed..Smith said Alberta “will never allow these regulations to be implemented here – full stop.” Moe added Saskatchewan would do “what’s possible, versus an ideological policy that may come from another level of government.”.As an afterthought, Smith said Alberta would “assert our rights under the constitution” so that Monsieur Guilbeault could “pound sand.”.The question of the constitutionality of the Laurentian government’s environmental regulations has come up several times by commentators seeking to defend the jurisdictional responsibilities of the prairie provinces..Usually section 92A is cited, particularly as regards the “development, conservation and management” of facilities “for the generation and production of electricity,” which is given “exclusively” to the provinces..Looks pretty clear, so that normal people would conclude that the Laurentians once again are engaging in what the Alberta Court of Appeal called “federal overreach” and “confiscation.” Normal people, however, do not sit on the Supreme Court of Canada..From the beginning, in 1875, critics of the Court have focussed on its being a creature of the central government. One of the reasons for its creation back then was that exercising the legal ability of the central government to disallow provincial legislation brought political costs with it..By establishing a court that looked to be independent of the central government, the new institution would be immune to paying such costs. It was all about the law, you see, not politics at all. The pretense worked well for many years..In 1949, with the end of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, and especially after the 1982 Constitutional Act, this argument became increasingly detached from political reality..The chief reason for the change came from what we usually call judicial activism. This term refers to the tendency of those sitting on the Court to grant themselves greater wisdom than their traditionally “restrained” predecessors. And with greater wisdom, of course, came assertions of greater (and final) power..The majesty of the law, as understood today by the scarlet-and-ermine-clad lawyers on the court, contains no reason to 'defer,' as their predecessors had, to anyone, certainly not to a vulgar prairie legislature..Today there can be no serious criticism of the notion the Supreme Court of Canada is an agent of the central executive, the federal Laurentian cabinet..We have all seen a pattern in the rulings of the Supreme Court in recent years that upheld the priority of Ottawa over the provinces, especially the prairie provinces..In fact, this has gone on for at least the past three generations. Many observers have noted that, though the term 'environment' does not even appear in the constitution, the Supreme Court has conjured it into being as something called a “shared jurisdiction.”.This was preliminary to apportioning the shares. And who says who gets the biggest share? One guess..The Liberal government is counting on the judiciary doing their dirty work once again..Guilbeault and the others fully expect the Court to rule in their favour, just as they did with the 2001 Carbon Tax case. Moreover, back then, chief justice Richard Wagner opined from the bench just what Guilbeault and Trudeau would have wanted: anthropogenic climate change has become an existential threat to all humanity, which thereby justifies just about anything the centralizing Laurentians want..Normal people would call his hysterical remarks evidence of panic, not wisdom..The Laurentians on the bench and in Parliament may be misguided, even malicious, but they are not politically stupid. Let us therefore agree that, if matters follow precedent, the Government of Canada will prevail over the prairie provinces..But then what?.Two things are likely to happen in the short term and a third is still a way down the road..First, the Liberal government will make the resistance of Alberta and Saskatchewan a major issue in the next federal election..Look for them to vilify the Conservatives and Poilievre on the ever-fraudulent national unity question. CBC has already begun the process against Poilievre..This means, very simply, the Liberals will champion the Laurentians against us. Nothing new there, of course. Moreover, it would be naïve to think that they do not stand a good chance of winning. It’s worked before; why won’t it work again?.Second, in response to the current assault, if the prairie premiers invoke the Saskatchewan First Act and the Sovereignty Act, this will simply confirm the winning strategy of the Liberal Laurentians..They took the first step with the new regulations, having one eye on the next election and fully expecting a firm response from Saskatchewan and Alberta. So far, it’s working..And then, as a corollary to stage two, look for the courts to rule in favour of the central government, dismissing provincial defences against Laurentian tyranny as being illegal: good-bye Sovereignty Act; good-bye Saskatchewan First Act..This brings up the third consequence, which was indicated in my opening question: how much more will it take to exit a political arrangement characterized by endless Laurentian abuse?.As the Psalmist wrote: “how long, O Lord, how long?”.Obviously, no one knows. But if Smith and Moe are not pondering the implications of how seriously to resist, let alone to counter, the implications of the latest Laurentian assault, they can be certain that others, made of sterner stuff, are waiting to replace them.
