November 6, 2013 POGG: Part I

1. Mndmap va xmnd of Dvson of Powers http://bt.y/mndmapdop

2. POGG 91. It sha be awfu for the Oueen, by and wth the Advce and
Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make aws for the Peace,
Order, and good Government of Canada, n reaton to a Matters not comng
wthn the Casses of Sub|ects by ths Act assgned excusvey to the
Legsatures of the Provnces; and for greater Certanty, but not so as to
restrct the Generaty of the foregong Terms of ths Secton, t s hereby
decared that (notwthstandng anythng n ths Act) the excusve Legsatve
Authorty of the Parament of Canada extends to a Matters comng wthn
the Casses of Sub|ects next herenafter enumerated; that s to say,.
a. Genera Outne of ths power
a.i. POGG- emergency + national concern branch
a.ii. Current understanding: POGG = residual power;
a.iii. s. 91= enumerated + POGG power
b. Short hstory of ths power
b.. Canada Temperance (1946)
b..1. Fed C Temperance Act forbdng sae of acoho,
b..2. s t st vad under POGG?
b..2.a. Is acoho s a natona emergency? --s the
emergency over?
b..2.b. If emergency s over..s natona concern power
vad?
b..2.b.. Natona concern=Be nherent nature/concern
of domnon as a whoe.
b..2.b.. Natona concern dfferent from emergency
power ; ts a separate power
b..2.b..1. Exampe: catte w/ dsease;
ncrease n traffc btw provnces;ncrease
n freght traffc; ma traffc;
mantenance/extenson of arports/
b..2.b.. natona concern doctrne |ustfcaton used for
'preventng' emergency
b..2.b.v. doube aspect woud be avaabe;-fed
b.. |ohannesson v Muncpaty of West St. Pau (arports, 1952)
b..1. matter of aurenautcs concern for country as a whoe
b..2. matter Is not dvsbe.
b..3. t woud be ntoerabe that such a natona purpose
mght be defeated by a rura muncpaty, the Counc of
whch decded that the noise attendant on the operaton
of arpanes was ob|ectonabe.
b..4. Loca nose concern not enough to overde not
puttng up arports whch s a natnoa concern.
b.. Munro v. Natona Capta Commsson (1966)-extremey broad
power.
b.v. natona capta commsson generate pro|ects/deveopement for
natona prde
b.v. w/n power of fed parament to estabsh natona capta
commsson? ;
b.v.1. Yes. Under natnoa concern doctrne; NCC mandate
contans snge ndvsbe snge matter of natona
concern;
b.v.1.a. deveopment, conservaton and mprovement of the
Natona Capta Regon
3. Visions of POGG, Visions of Judin: !as"in and #eet$
Laskin (centralist) Beetz (federalist) You
Social location /
formative experiences
He's to the left political
spectrum; he's from Quebec;
distrust of national concern
doctrine; preffered
emergency interpretation;
Vision of judicial role Functional approach/
formal stle! make la" serve social need! livin#
tree doctrine!
Favour judicial discretion;
concentrate on legal concept
of technical language of C ;
textualist;
Vision of federalism $%&&'#eneral po"er(
enumerated'examples onl!
favour existence of a stron# central
#overnment! called for flexi)ilit in the
interpretation of the constitution
Favourable to
provincial/minority interest;
exclusive areas of
jurisdiction for both levels of
government; agree with
Privcy Council interpretatoin
of the counstitution;
4. Reference re Anti Inflation Act
a. Outcome (|ust for the sake of carty)
AIA |ustfed under POGG:
Natona Concern (Growth)
Maybe: Laskn, |udson,
Spence, Dckson
No: Rtche |.,
Martand,
Pgeon.
No such
doctrne:
Beetz, de
Grandpre
%I% &ustified under
POGG 'meren()
#ran(*
Yes: Laskn, |udson,
Spence, Dckson, Rtche,
Martand, Pgeon
No: Beetz,
de Grandpre
b. Areas of Dsagreement n Ant Infaton
b.. Was there an Emergency?
b.. Ob|ect of egsaton s to contro nfaton
b..1. Hgh unempoyment, hgh nfaton-10%
b..1.a. ob|ectve s prce proft and ncome contro;
b..1.b.
b..2. Emergency s temporary or 'new norma'?
b..3. Evdence
b..3.a. Form of the Act (excusons)
b..3.b. Language of the Act (preambe)
b..3.c. Meanng of the Extrnsc Evdence
b.. On the other Branch of the POGG power - Natona Concern
(growth )?
b..1. The probem of Dvsbty at 313-14
b..2. Beetz opposes the noton of a natona concern-
growth doctrne
1. Exempton and temporary (acton-->sgna?)
Laskn:
1. the fact there exemptons: exemptng provnce's cv servant and
company wth ess # of empoyee; doesnt ndcate that somethng s not
emergency egsaton.
2. Emergency egsaton can have exemptons;
3. excuson/exemptons doesnt mean anythng at a
4. ony requrement s temporary
5. federa govnt attempt to act cooperatvey (provnca pubc sector can
opt n f there s an agreement) doesnt mean ts utra vres.
6. Fed govnt decded to cooperate doesnt mean they coud have done t
wthout cooperaton;
7. dont want 'cooperaton' too serousy to negate emergency.
Beetz:
1. rea emergency egssaton doesnt have exemptons/or choce to opt n or
opt out
2. the fact that there s exemptons SHOWS that ts suffcent to say there s
emergency
2. Wordng of the act-pre-ambe: serous natona concern= emergency (word--
>sgna)
1. Laskn: use of phrase 'serous natona concern' 'necessary to restran
proft'=ndcatve of serous natona condton=meets the requrement of
emergency.
1. Language of egsaton shoudnt carry the day
2. |ust bcuz 'emergency' s there..doesnt mean t s an emergency thng
3. use preambe as bass for asessng what govnt thought as the gravty of
the stuaton.
4. It must be temporary
2. Beetz: aw expctyhave to be about emergency, 'serous natona concern'
s vague sgna; govnt shoud gve expct sgna
1. suspend ordnary operatno of D of power -consttuton
2. suspeson of C D of Power shoud mpose strct forma textua
requrement.
3. There s a bg dff btw 'natona concern' and 'emergency'
4. govnt shoudnt be ambguous abt nvokng the emergency power
5. but no magc word,
6. |ust bcuz ts temporary doesnt mean ts an emergency
3. Extrnsc evdence-economcs data/econ experts/profs (|udges can't decde the
accuracy of evdence or whether evdence suggests that ts an emergency)
1. Laskn: econ data/prof ndcate extremy unusua crcumstances country s
facng: hgh nfaton and hgh unempoyment-very rare; eve of nfaton s
hgher than ts ever been
1. Lpsey: egsaton snt gong to work to sove t; atho stuaton s very dre
2. does t matter that egsaton doesnt work? Ony f ts coourabe.....
1. |ust need to ook at the ratona bass for passng the aw.
1. Laskn and Beetz agree on ratona bass-that there s ratona bass
for concuson of emergency; no other way to dea w/ emergency
other than nvocaton of POGG.
2. Ratona bass can ncude anythng tangbe/stats/nferences to
suggest that there mght be a probem affectng we beng of the
country;
2. Ratona bass |ustfed that Act s necessary for the we beng of the
country;
3. |ust need ratona bass for beevng crcumstances requres egsatve
acton.
3. s. 91 power act as sprngboard as POGG power.
1. Bcuz there severa fed power reated to contro nfaton-ths hep fed
cam over |ursdcton over nfaton
2. ths s extenson of fed's exstng power over banks and nterest rate
contro/monetary pocy
2. Beetz: Beetz dont want to ook at extrnsc evdence, even when he ooks, he
thnks that extrnsc evdence shows ts not an emergency
1. more crtca of use of extrnsc evdence; contextua evdence;
2. re|ects emergency power as |ustfcaton for ths act;
1. then goes onto natona concern;
1. s there a NC?
2. Pth n substance of ths act s not nfaton;
3. nfaton-aggragate matter made up of many fed/heads of power
that beong both to both fed and prov
4. nfaton s an aggragate; pth and substance shoudnt be an
aggragate of ther heads of power
5. nfaton s not a new phenmnon; t must wthn contempatn of the
fathers of confederaton;
6. POGG performs 2 functon: thngs that are new and snguar
1. thngs that are emergency
2. nfaton s not new/snguar
3. nfaton s not an emergency
2. s there doube aspect n POGG?
+. 'meren() !eis,ation %fter AIR
a. Emergencies Act http://bit.ly/tb8ixt
b. Natona Concern After AIR
b.. Hauser
b..1. Court + Beetz broad readng to POGG power.
b..2. NCA |ustfed under POGG natona concern/growth
concern or 'new' concern? (drug=new n the same way
arpane and rado?)
b..2.a. not crm aw power |ustfcaton
b..2.b. drug s a new probem under POGG
b.ii. Schneider
b..1. BC Heron treatment act; aow BC govnt to
confne/ncarcerate addct for treatment purpose
b..2. outsde vres of provnca government?
b..3. but |ursdcton over drug shoud be fed POGG
b..4. ths s dstngushed from Hauser
b..4.a. treatment of addcton s dff from drug
traffckng under POGG
b..5. can provnca dea wth ths on ts own?-treatment
probaby yes
b..6. movement across prov boarder=traffckng=prov
cant dea wth ths aone=provnca nabty; ndvsbty
b..7. BC act for treatment ntra vrus
b..8.
-*a,,ene for t*e ne.t (,ass, ,oo"in at t*e Nationa, -on(ern /o(trine:
Page 326 n Crown Zeerbach part IV gves us a set of four concusons. These are
not a test, rather, they are nformatve about the nature of the POGG power
under natona concern.
The chaenge s how these concusons hep us reach a concuson about whether a
partcuar thng s or s not covered under pogg. . Pease do pay partcuar
attenton to how the facts are run through the tests. Remember, what they do, not
|ust what they say.