Daniel Turp, a former MP, wants the judiciary to override the will of the majority in the House of Commons.
Good luck with that.
Here is what Daniel Turp is complaining about with regards to the Kyoto Protocol:
A former Quebec politician is planning legal action against the Conservative government for pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, calling the move unconstitutional.
Daniel Turp, a former Parti Quebecois MNA and Bloc MP, said he is going to ask the federal court to block Ottawa's controversial decision, and is calling on Canadians to join his legal campaign.
"It's not abiding by the law, or the law on the books," said Turp, referring to the Kyoto Implementation Act passed by the House of Commons in 2007.
Turp, who now teaches international and constitutional law at the University of Montreal, launched an online petition for Canadians to support his plan because he believes "citizens should have a voice."
Now the online element of his effort is telling. Like any activist lawyer, he follows three rules first enunciated by none other than Al Gore:
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.
Nothing hollers as loud as the mob, which is what Daniel Turp is trying to whip up. If the law, or for that, the facts, were on Daniel Turp's side, he wouldn't have to get a mob together coming out of the gate. But I think he knows that the law does nothing to prevent the duly elected government of Canada from leaving the Kyoto Protocol, as allowed by the Protocol. The Canadian legislation known as the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act is hinged on Canada's ratification of the Protocol (see the Preamble), so without the Protocol, there is nothing to implement.
In any case, legislation can be repealed, and in this case, it will be.
As for the facts, well, who really believes in global warming anymore? I think we've seen more than enough emails to convince most reasonable people that climate alarmists posing as scientists have long since despaired of finding enough measurable facts to support their global warming fantasy.
But back to Daniel Turp and his allegation that leaving the Kyoto Protocol is unconstitutional.
How exactly does Canada's Constitution make it illegal for the Canadian government to exercise its power to leave the Kyoto Protocol, as allowed by the Kyoto Protocol?
Heck, for that matter, who cares if Article 27 of the Kyoto Protocol didn't exist? Canada is still a sovereign nation, and what external power is going to brought to bear to compel Canada to be part of a protocol to which the elected majority government has decided it wants nothing to do with?
The article in the CBC is short on detail. Daniel Turp does not quote what part of the Constitution applies to this situation, and what part makes exercising the right to leave as described in Article 27 unconstitutional. Nor does it appear that anyone has posed the question, or if the question was asked, the decision was taken not to print the response.
That response, if there was one, I suspect consisted of the shrugging of shoulders followed by foam-flecked ranting about global warming and then topped off with some snide remark about how Quebec is far more enlightened or some such thing.
I am always suspicious of people who claim something they don't like is "unconstitutional". Invariably, the portion of the Constitution that applies exists only in their imaginations.
I am doubly suspicious of separatists and the way constitutionality is an elastic concept, bent in any way they consider convenient, under pressure from the mob if necessary (or even preferably).