(1) The new federal Liberal government is very concerned that Canada is falling behind in its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and inhibit climate change and its deleterious effects. It realizes urgent action is required and is privately considering the idea of introducing severe restrictions on the production and use of oil; this is the main cause of emissions. To this end, they are considering three important and wide-ranging initiatives: • No new production sites for oil will be permitted; - property and civil rights - doesn’t this create a case for lapse? no new production sites means that province produced oil won’t be permitted which poses a problem for the feds as it’s clearly property rights with no clear federal dimension other than environment. on the other hand, the oil produced is transmitted interprovincially. so that’s an issue. what’s the difference in permitting. increasing the net amount of oil in the world. presumably this is dependant on decreasing having a rationale in preventing the aspects of global warming. this isn’t clear. If the feds can make the case that it will decrease global emissions then they might be able to pursue other routes such as national concern doctrine. • All oil production will be reduced by 25% from its 2018 levels; and - same sort of thing as above, though less obviously touching on civil rights and property. • Strict rationing will be imposed on the importation and use of Canadian oil - rationing is a pretty BFD, has a national dimension though across Canada. You are contacted by the federal government to advise on the constitutionality of these initiatives, the opposing arguments that might be made by the provinces, and the changes to these initiatives, if any are needed, that might increase their chances of being constitutional – what would you write? [It might (or might not) be helpful to know that, while five provinces produce oil, the vast majority (97%) of Canadian oil production occurs in three provinces -- Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland. Alberta produces almost 80% of the total. Ontario and Quebec are by far the largest importers and users of Canadian oil.] - depends on how much oil goes outside of alberta. could probably be used for national emergency, you’d have to look at the dissent. (2) “Considerable mystery shrouds the origin, development and application of unwritten constitutional principles. While a handful of commentators treat this as a troubling state of affairs, most maintain that it is a necessary and beneficial feature of good governance in a democratic polity.” Discuss with reference to any materials or topics covered in the course. (3) Write a case comment on R. v. Comeau, 2018 SCC 18 -- https://scccsc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scccsc/en/item/17059/index.do (4) You are a judge on the Supreme Court of Osgoode, the highest court in Canada. You hear the appeal of Ross (Constitutional Casebook p.274) today – what would you write? (5) Devise, state and answer your own question POGG Central Canada potash case (1979) legislature may exclusively make laws to do with management of these resources and the rate of primary production (they can dictate caps if they legislate on it) basically overturns the potash case. sask natural resource case sigol case National Concern doctrine PRO - Anti inflation act in 1976, passed in 1974 National Concern doctrine CON - Crown v zelleback (dumping wood case) (1988) Cuomo. (hutch thinks its petty that they went after this guy) incidental - carnation milk pro incidental in favour of province EGGS. PRODUCTION IS A PROVINCIAL MATTER, MARKETING IS FEDERAL. might apply to oil here. joint endeavour needed for both, but you can do anything making it a voluntary venture kills national concern because did you really need it? - fancy apples case – not incidental to enter a scheme that would regulate a provincial area. cannot by and large regulate inside provincial trade securities case. need recognition of liquor sales - owners are not bound by 91(2) when provincially owned. feds and GM preference black case: excluding NWT from the arrangement. - cannot favour a single industry, has to be concerned with trade as a whole ross is an example of where the two might be said to have less leeway civil rights (Lacombe) - Quebec can’t regulate civil rights such that it intentionally targets federal power. presumably this also means the inverse, if feds create a law that targets a provincial area then you’re fine.
