Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[ZedMan]

How does that make what he said "unconstitutional"? In the very next paragraphs he explains how the federal government isn't planning to tell the provinces what resources they can use:

The federal government can and is playing a role in pollution, which is why we’ve put carbon pricing in place and are about to set an objective to make electricity production carbon-neutral by 2035.


We will also be introducing regulation to cap the emissions of the oil and gas sector – a cap and cut regulation – in the coming months. Our goal is that whatever happens to production, we need to ensure that the emissions from Canada’s oil and gas sector go down over time.

In fact, despite multiple questions on the subject, he's very careful not to state anything about specific restrictions on oil sands production or any other resource extraction.

[powderjunkie]

I trust our Governor to know exactly how the constitution works.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Yeah I’m going to go ahead and apply a pretty big grain of salt when the drafters of the so-called “Sovereignty Act” lecture me about division of powers in Canada.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1680291791181082624

During the interview, Guilbeault said the numbers broadly point in the same direction: "We will likely go from around 100 million barrels of oil per day to something like 25-30 million barrels per day — a 75% reduction."

[BowRiverBruinsRule]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1680291791181082624

During the interview, Guilbeault said the numbers broadly point in the same direction: "We will likely go from around 100 million barrels of oil per day to something like 25-30 million barrels per day — a 75% reduction."

Sorry I don't quite understand your point.

[KelVarnsen]

They don’t have a point

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by BowRiverBruinsRule

Sorry I don't quite understand your point.

Apparently Guilbeault hates the oil sands so much they're willing to help Alberta increase production by 96M barrels a day, doubling the world's oil production, just so they can reduce it by 75% later.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Example A,B,and C why UCP won the election and Albertans chose Smith to Champion and defend the Province.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1680234943056842752

It is great to have someone on your team who can throw serious hay-makers!

Of course, it is less great if all they do is go around dramatically punching themselves in the face while doing nothing to actually protect you...

As someone who has actually studied and argued the real constitutional law of Canada it is truly astonishing that anyone could STILL be impressed by these unserious and often blatantly wrong infographic declarations of what is or is not "constitutional" or in Alberta's "exclusive jurisdiction".

From the References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (you know that case where the ONCA and SKCA both found federal regulation of carbon pricing via national minimum standards constitutional before the SCC also did):

There is no doubt that a finding that a matter is of national concern confers exclusive jurisdiction over that matter on Parliament

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...18781/index.do

You will there find the SCC majority citing back to three prior constitutional cases as to how there is 'no doubt' on that...one from 1976.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement and argument on constitutional law matters. The case above was itself a split decision at the SCC and the ABCA had (albeit incorrectly) declared the regulations unconstitutional. As well, there is clear language in the SCC majority decision explaining why it is not a blanket conferral of jurisdiction allowing the feds to set minimum national standards on anything they feel like just by connecting it to fighting climate change.

But, it is simply the worst form of advocacy and likely to be the least effective and most costly for Alberta to just continue running a never-ending Twitter election campaign instead of getting serious and dealing with real issues from within the confines of the reality of what our constitutional democracy ACTUALLY is and not what a small overly-vocal group of uninformed citizens wish it was.

As ZedMan pointed out, Minister Guilbeault reveals in his full statements that he actually has an understanding of what the SCC said on the jurisdictional issue...and that his government is intending to follow it and essentially guarantee that whatever new measures they put in place will be upheld as constitutional.

According to his quoted statements, the feds will not be interfering with provincial jurisdiction on use of resources but rather will be setting national standards on pollution to meet internationally agreed to targets - a matter of national concern. If they do what they say, and they follow the test set by the SCC, the exclusive jurisdiction is theirs...in spite of Premier Smith's repeated bombastic rhetoric claiming the opposite to be true.

If Alberta's leaders would be honest about this legal reality, they would explain to the voters how good faith negotiating and working to influence and minimize potential harms from the regulatory approach the feds are taking (while knocking off the fake claims that the constitution prohibits things it absolutely permits) is ACTUALLY how to best champion and defend the province.

[Ozy_Flame]

Stop, stop he's already dead!

[Yoho]

Good post, I think you’re under some illusion that this will be some sort of mature adult reasonable debate over this issue from either parties.

It won’t be, these are the opening salvos to an epic prize fight.

And I’m so happy with our combatant in this melee.


Lots of different ways this can still play out.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Good post, I think you’re under some illusion that this will be some sort of mature adult reasonable debate over this issue from either parties.

It won’t be, these are the opening salvos to an epic prize fight.

And I’m so happy with our combatant in this melee.


Lots of different ways this can still play out.

The federal liberals are behaving like a first year undergrad student. Idealistic and ignorant of unfortunate but undeniable realities that preclude said idealistic notions.

OTOH, it would be insulting to preschoolers to compare them to the UCP. Toddlers are generally capable of learning lessons and personal growth. But the UCP have the same amazing persistence of spirit you see from toddlers, where no matter how many times you explain why their demand is completely impossible and unrealistic, they will continue to don their winter jacket+boots and ask you to take them tobogganing in the middle of July. But at least the toddler's heart is in the right place...unlike you jabronis that just want to ##### Trudeau.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Good post, I think you’re under some illusion that this will be some sort of mature adult reasonable debate over this issue from either parties.

It won’t be, these are the opening salvos to an epic prize fight.

And I’m so happy with our combatant in this melee.


Lots of different ways this can still play out.

I guess its fair to acknowledge that you want your "combatant" to take made-up positions that lack merit?

Still offers nothing as an explanation for why anyone would want that.

But, in fairness to the discussion, of the "lots" of different ways this can play out, can you suggest one that

(a) gets the result for Alberta that you believe would be the desired outcome; and

(b) make the case for how repeatedly crying wolf about "unconstitutional" actions and then losing in court assists in attaining that outcome?

I am genuinely prepared to consider there is such a case...and equally genuine in saying I do not currently see what it could be.

[indes]

I think the resounding theory is that if Smith holds her breath and stomps for long enough, daddy Trudeau will give in. Isn't that the plan? Instead of putting on big boy pants and having a real discussion at the adult table, we'll just be at home holding our ball. Go UCP! Hold that ball!

[GGG]

Does Smoth realize that she is in a province where her government stewards a cap on O+G emissions ?

Why is she limiting growth?

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1680388260936425473

This doesn’t seem fishy at all.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1680388260936425473

This doesn’t seem fishy at all.

A politician being two-faced? Stop the presses!

[GGG]

Has anyone done a deep dive on this guy to see if this is a bit?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Yoho

This doesn’t seem fishy at all.

You missed Mbates's response above you there.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by jayswin

You missed Mbates's response above you there.

He does that. People give a good ol' fashioned educating and he pretends like it never existed.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

In fairness, the constitution hasn't stood in the way of B.C. and Quebec asserting veto power over obviously interprovincial works in recent years, so it's reasonable to ask why Alberta should have to be held to it if no one else is.

I think there probably is room for some interesting, if ultimately probably doomed, legal arguments about Federal overreach in legislating on matters within Federal constitutional jurisdiction that indirectly force provinces to exercise exclusive provincial jurisdiction to implement them, but the reality is that when Federal and Provincial jurisdiction conflict, the Feds are going to win, because more or less every long-standing jurisprudential doctrine in that particular area of constitutional law favours the Feds... it seems like the absolute best case outcome for any challenge to a law like this is "well, maybe it does tread a BIT on provincial jurisdiction, certainly places significant burdens on provincial governments to create legislation within provincial jurisdiction to effect this regime, but that's fine, pith and substance etc etc."