2023 UCP Alberta election

[Brad Sallows]

I'm not in, or from, AB so I haven't really been following this.

However, how would it affect federally-managed areas such as CFBs Cold Lake, Edmonton, and Wainwright?

If, for example, AB decides not to follow [insert federal ruling here], do the provincial or federal rules apply on base and in the training areas?

The core of what is proposed is for AB to choose whether to enforce federal rules, not to set them aside. If AB declines to enforce, the rules stand but it's up to the feds to supply enforcement.

 

[CBH99]

Weird choice of examples. Alberta’s COVID restrictions were all from provincial laws and enacted by the provincial government. Ottawa did not impose COVID lockdowns or restrictions on Alberta businesses. Alberta did.

Was using voice text while multi-tasking.

My general point was that it gives the province a bit of a buffer

 

[brihard]

Was using voice text while multi-tasking.

My general point was that it gives the province a bit of a buffer

Not sure the relevance of text to driving… The issue wasn’t some typo or something; you were wholesale blaming Ottawa for policies the provincial government enacted, and citing them as an example of the sort of law this act would let Alberta simply not obey… But it was a false example right from the start.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not sure the relevance of text to driving… The issue wasn’t some typo or something; you were wholesale blaming Ottawa for policies the provincial government enacted, and citing them as an example of the sort of law this act would let Alberta simply not obey… But it was a false example right from the start.

I read it more as hypothetical situations.

 

[CBH99]

Not sure the relevance of text to driving… The issue wasn’t some typo or something; you were wholesale blaming Ottawa for policies the provincial government enacted, and citing them as an example of the sort of law this act would let Alberta simply not obey… But it was a false example right from the start.

You’re right.

What I meant when I said using voice text while multitasking, was that I was kind of thinking out loud.

I didn’t put a lot of thought into the examples, clearly. Now that I’m home and actually sitting/reading my posts, I’m wishing I’d chosen different ones


My overall point was that the whole idea of the Sovereignty Act proposed would be to act as a buffer between Ottawa overreach and everyday life for Albertans until a court rules on it. (As far as I understand it, anyway)

If this is the case, I don’t understand why people are so nervous about it.

(Saskatchewan may not be proposing legislation like Alberta is, but Saskatchewan has also stated they will not be putting any provincial resources towards enforcing C-21, for example. So it isn’t just Alberta thinking along these lines)


I could have used better examples (or ones that made sense even, Sunday is a day of rest for my brain too apparently)

 

[CBH99]

I read it more as hypothetical situations.

THANK YOU

 

[brihard]

You’re right.

What I meant when I said using voice text while multitasking, was that I was kind of thinking out loud.

I didn’t put a lot of thought into the examples, clearly. Now that I’m home and actually sitting/reading my posts, I’m wishing I’d chosen different ones


My overall point was that the whole idea of the Sovereignty Act proposed would be to act as a buffer between Ottawa overreach and everyday life for Albertans until a court rules on it. (As far as I understand it, anyway)

If this is the case, I don’t understand why people are so nervous about it.

(Saskatchewan may not be proposing legislation like Alberta is, but Saskatchewan has also stated they will not be putting any provincial resources towards enforcing C-21, for example. So it isn’t just Alberta thinking along these lines)


I could have used better examples (or ones that made sense even, Sunday is a day of rest for my brain too apparently)

Gotcha, ok.

My concern is that it upsets the apple cart, in that any law passed through a legislature is presumed to be lawful (including constitutional) until and unless succesfully challenged. That’s how it has to be; we have a constitutional division of powers, that usually is adhered to very well, and that has mechanisms to redress disputes.

A system where either the feds or the provinces can pass a law, but then the other level of government can arbitrarily say “no” and reverse the onus of proving lawfulness, is at risk of profound dysfunction. We have a democratic process that elects legislatures, and those legislatures - with a lot of legal backstopping - are entrusted and empowered to legislate the functionings of their respective levels of government. Similarly, federal and provincial legislatures can each regulate matters whereenabled by legislation.

Reversing (or allowing that reversal of) that presumption of legislative validity runs counter to our entire system of how laws are created and enacted.

 

[Lumber]

The first part of my post below is basically a long winded version of @brihard just said. However, I have second reason at the end.

My overall point was that the whole idea of the Sovereignty Act proposed would be to act as a buffer between Ottawa overreach and everyday life for Albertans until a court rules on it. (As far as I understand it, anyway)

If this is the case, I don’t understand why people are so nervous about it.

(Saskatchewan may not be proposing legislation like Alberta is, but Saskatchewan has also stated they will not be putting any provincial resources towards enforcing C-21, for example. So it isn’t just Alberta thinking along these lines)

I could have used better examples (or ones that made sense even, Sunday is a day of rest for my brain too apparently)

Two reasons.

First, it's unconstitutional; the proposed law goes completely against the structure of our system of government. We have a division of powers. Within that division of powers, one provincial government can create a law that a subsequent provincial government can simply cancel by passing a new law. Similarly, the federal government can create a law that a subsequent federal government can simply cancel by passing a new law. What cannot happen within the framework of our constitution is for a provincial government to cancel a federal law by passing a provincial law, and vice versa, which is essentially what this law aims to do. EVEN IF it is blatantly clear that a federal law violates the constitution, the provincial level simply does not have the authority to pass a law to ignore that federal law. Whether or not a law passed by one level of government passes infringes on the assigned powers of the other level government is the responsibility of the judiciary, not he legislature, to determine. And it HAS to be this way; the application of the constitution is complicated, and the division of powers have a significant amount of overlap, and you need experienced, intelligent and knowledgeable judges to sift through it all.

Just have a read of section 3, "The Distribution of Powers in Selected Areas" to see many of the different ways that the courts have established/clarified the division of powers. Just as one example where the courts have provided clarity, Nuclear Power. Normally, provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources under their powers regarding taxation, local works and undertakings, and property and civil rights in the province. However, the Federal government can claim jurisdiction over some of these under section 92(10)(c) if such works are for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the Provinces. Given the sensitive and strategic nature of Nuclear power and substances, the Feds hold jurisdiction on these matters.

Second, because the way it's written and the things that people are saying in support of it lead many people to believe that Albertans don't intend to use this law to push back against legitimate federal government overreach, but that Albertans will use this law against any federal law that they don't like. What's become very apparent through my reading lots of discussion regarding the Sov Act (not just here, lots of other places), is that most people don't actually understand the constitution and the division of powers, and like to blame the feds for everything (especially if the LPC is in power). So, whenever the feds pass a law that Albertans don't like, even if it is very obviously within their power to do so, Alberta could use this act to simply ignore it without (or prior to) any appropriate judicial review.

 

[McG]

What cannot happen within the framework of our constitution is for a provincial government to cancel a federal law by passing a provincial law, and vice versa, which is essentially what this law aims to do.

Well, there might be a constitutional mechanism at the federal level.

Disallowance and reservation in Canada - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[brihard]

Alberta could use this act to simply ignore it without (or prior to) any appropriate judicial review.

Did you note what Alberta’s trying to do with judicial review with this statute? Total discarding of Vavilov to create their own unique reasonableness standard that protects the government, and well as greatly shortening the time period within which JR can be sought.

 

[CBH99]

I actually didn’t know much at all about the division of powers as explained by both @brihard and @Lumber - and just got schooled on the matter, which I appreciate.

When looking at it from that perspective, I can see why it upsets the Apple cart so much.


Question - it makes sense that any laws passed in parliament are presumed to be constitutional. But what happens if they are not?

(it’s not that I dislike anything the LPC does. But this current government is unlike any other Canadian government that I can recall, and not in a good way.)

 

[CBH99]

Hey look! We found one of those people I alluded to before: the ones who blame Trudeau and the LPC for everything they don't like , even if it's not something that they were actually responsible for.

One could argue that Trudeau is very much responsible for the general distrust most people have towards this government, not just Alberta. And it’s this distrust that has fuelled this initiative in the first place.

(I don’t hate the LPC, but I do have nothing but severe dislike of Trudeau. I can accept some things probably land at his feet that aren’t actually his doing, but overall I don’t see him as being in our best interest or even having our best interest at heart.)

 

[Lumber]

One could argue that Trudeau is very much responsible for the general distrust most people have towards this government, not just Alberta. And it’s this distrust that has fuelled this initiative in the first place.

(I don’t hate the LPC, but I do have nothing but severe dislike of Trudeau. I can accept some things probably land at his feet that aren’t actually his doing, but overall I don’t see him as being in our best interest or even having our best interest at heart.)

Based on your replies, I'm going to remove the quoted post. You were speaking hypothetically and from a position of ignorance (you admit not knowing much about division of powers), not malign arrogance.

 

[brihard]

I actually didn’t know much at all about the division of powers as explained by both @brihard and @Lumber - and just got schooled on the matter, which I appreciate.

When looking at it from that perspective, I can see why it upsets the Apple cart so much.


Question - it makes sense that any laws passed in parliament are presumed to be constitutional. But what happens if they are not?

(it’s not that I dislike anything the LPC does. But this current government is unlike any other Canadian government that I can recall, and not in a good way.)

Good question. So, the constitution lays out, in broad categories, which powers are federal and which are provincial. Obviously there are cases with overlap and conflict; a given program or policy might implicate multiple constitutional heads of power that reside at different levels.

Supposing a law is passed that, despite best efforts in legislative committee, may end up breaching constitutional division of powers, the remedy for that is through various court processes, depending on how exactly the law in question operates and who would have standing to challenge it. Most likely would be one level of government directly challenging the matter in court by bringing some sort of application. Theoretically, were someone charged with an offence, they could raise a challenge on constitutional grounds as per of prosecution proceedings. Usually you only see that with Charter issues but I suppose if there was an outright division of powers question on an offence, that could be done.

In either case, the presumption is that a law is constitutionally valid, and someone moving that it isn’t bears the onus of proving that in court.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The first part of my post below is basically a long winded version of @brihard just said. However, I have second reason at the end.


Two reasons.

First, it's unconstitutional; the proposed law goes completely against the structure of our system of government. We have a division of powers. Within that division of powers, one provincial government can create a law that a subsequent provincial government can simply cancel by passing a new law. Similarly, the federal government can create a law that a subsequent federal government can simply cancel by passing a new law. What cannot happen within the framework of our constitution is for a provincial government to cancel a federal law by passing a provincial law, and vice versa, which is essentially what this law aims to do. EVEN IF it is blatantly clear that a federal law violates the constitution, the provincial level simply does not have the authority to pass a law to ignore that federal law. Whether or not a law passed by one level of government passes infringes on the assigned powers of the other level government is the responsibility of the judiciary, not he legislature, to determine. And it HAS to be this way; the application of the constitution is complicated, and the division of powers have a significant amount of overlap, and you need experienced, intelligent and knowledgeable judges to sift through it all.

Just have a read of section 3, "The Distribution of Powers in Selected Areas" to see many of the different ways that the courts have established/clarified the division of powers. Just as one example where the courts have provided clarity, Nuclear Power. Normally, provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources under their powers regarding taxation, local works and undertakings, and property and civil rights in the province. However, the Federal government can claim jurisdiction over some of these under section 92(10)(c) if such works are for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the Provinces. Given the sensitive and strategic nature of Nuclear power and substances, the Feds hold jurisdiction on these matters.

Second, because the way it's written and the things that people are saying in support of it lead many people to believe that Albertans don't intend to use this law to push back against legitimate federal government overreach, but that Albertans will use this law against any federal law that they don't like. What's become very apparent through my reading lots of discussion regarding the Sov Act (not just here, lots of other places), is that most people don't actually understand the constitution and the division of powers, and like to blame the feds for everything (especially if the LPC is in power). So, whenever the feds pass a law that Albertans don't like, even if it is very obviously within their power to do so, Alberta could use this act to simply ignore it without (or prior to) any appropriate judicial review.

So what can the Feds do when the Province still says FU? That is what BC and Alberta did for decades and in reality there is not a lot the Feds can do. If they withhold monies, then they are punishing taxpayers and voters in the Province and adding fuel to the fire. Sure they can ban Provincial staff and leaders from attending conferences. The courts can rule all they like, but it's not like the Sheriff can come in and seize the Legislature.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So what can the Feds do when the Province still says FU? That is what BC and Alberta did for decades and in reality there is not a lot the Feds can do. If they withhold monies, then they are punishing taxpayers and voters in the Province and adding fuel to the fire. Sure they can ban Provincial staff and leaders from attending conferences. The courts can rule all they like, but it's not like the Sheriff can come in and seize the Legislature.

We often forget the human factor.

 

[brihard]

So what can the Feds do when the Province still says FU? That is what BC and Alberta did for decades and in reality there is not a lot the Feds can do. If they withhold monies, then they are punishing taxpayers and voters in the Province and adding fuel to the fire. Sure they can ban Provincial staff and leaders from attending conferences. The courts can rule all they like, but it's not like the Sheriff can come in and seize the Legislature.

Well, that depends a lot on the legal specifics. If the province directs organizations or individuals not to do something they’re legally obligated to do under federal law, there may be recourse such as Mandamus, or court orders. That in turn could potentially lead to proceedings for contempt of violated. Those are big guns to trot out, but ultimately any legal process can eventually lead to coercve/punitive actions.

The absolute biggest wrench the feds could turn on this nut would be the federal power of Disallowance over provincial legislation, but for political reasons I suspect the feds would prefer to work the matter through the courts so that any decision comes with the legitimacy of judicial decision and reasoning, and also provides a clear path for legal appeal to see the matter through.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well, that depends a lot on the legal specifics. If the province directs organizations or individuals not to do something they’re legally obligated to do under federal law, there may be recourse such as Mandamus, or court orders. That in turn could potentially lead to proceedings for contempt of violated. Those are big guns to trot out, but ultimately any legal process can eventually lead to coercve/punitive actions.

The absolute biggest wrench the feds could turn on this nut would be the federal power of Disallowance over provincial legislation, but for political reasons I suspect the feds would prefer to work the matter through the courts so that any decision comes with the legitimacy of judicial decision and reasoning, and also provides a clear path for legal appeal to see the matter through.

Which the Feds chose not to do in the past and likely won't in the future. I remember my counterpart in Alberta still facing a wall from Provincial staff back in the late 90's and not getting any compliance from the Province on Federal legislation. Any action against a Province is likley to have political ramifications and feed the support for the initial opposition.

 

[Good2Golf]

Well, that depends a lot on the legal specifics. If the province directs organizations or individuals not to do something they’re legally obligated to do under federal law, there may be recourse such as Mandamus, or court orders. That in turn could potentially lead to proceedings for contempt of violated.

You mean like when the Speaker of the House held the Federal Government in contempt for refusing to provide information about the Chinese influence inside of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory? One could question whether the Fedral Government even cared that it was being held in contempt of Parliament.

Liberal government found in contempt of Parliament over case of fired Winnipeg lab scientists

Opposition parties censure government for failing to produce records in firing of Winnipeg lab scientists

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile a couple of doors over

Saskatchewan Firearms Act Proposes to License Fed Gun Grabbers

Congratulations to Christine Tell, Saskatchewan Minister of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety, for putting the federal government on notice.

Federal Firearm Seizure Agents must, within 45 days, pay fair market value compensation, as determined by the Saskatchewan Firearms Commissioner, to the individual from whom the firearm was seized.

5-3 If a firearm is seized from an owner pursuant to or for the purposes of enforcing a specified law, the person who conducts the seizure of the firearm must pay to the owner full compensation for the fair market value of the firearm…

Bill 117, The Saskatchewan Firearms Act, proposes to add six key elements to provincial law:

Create a Saskatchewan Firearms Licence;
Define Rules and Requirements of SK Firearms Licensees;
Licence Firearm Seizure Agents;
Define Rules and Responsibilities for Seizure Agents;
Define Compensation Rules, including Fair Market Value for all firearms seized; and
Require all seized firearms to go through ballistic testing before they are destroyed.

Once passed, this legislation will require that agents who are collecting firearms that must be surrendered under the new federal ban, including any person or business contracted by the federal government, must be licensed by Saskatchewan’s Chief Firearms Officer.

“Seizure agent”, subject to subsection (2), means a person who is engaged by the Crown in right of Canada, whether as an employee, agent or otherwise, to carry out any of the following for the purposes of enforcing a specified law:

(a) the tracking of restricted firearms or prohibited firearms;

(b) the seizure and collection of restricted firearms and prohibited firearms;

(c) the storage of restricted firearms and prohibited firearms;

(d) the destruction or deactivation of restricted firearms and prohibited firearms.

The following persons are not seizure agents for the purposes of Part 4:

(a) the chief firearms officer;

(b) any firearms officer;

(c) the commissioner;

(d) any officers or constables of any police service, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and

(e) any prescribed person or class of persons.

Additionally, “Every person that holds a valid licence pursuant to the Firearms Act (Canada) authorizing the individual to possess and acquire firearms and whose current address is in Saskatchewan is deemed to be the holder of a Saskatchewan firearms licence.”

“Legal firearms owners are not the ones committing crimes, so we’re looking at that aspect of it. We can’t have people just going out to residences and demanding a firearm. They must be licensed by the Province of Saskatchewan before they can consider confiscating that firearm,” Tell said after today’s Question Period.[ii]

“What this Firearms Act, in part, does is provides a provincial statute option not unlike we have with impaired driving. There are tandem provincial statutes to go along with impaired driving; this is the same thing,” Tell said.

“This Act will help address concerns of responsible firearms owners and enhance public safety across Saskatchewan,” said Minister Tell.[iii]

“We take public safety seriously and support initiatives that reduce the criminal use of firearms, while preventing gang violence and stopping illegal guns from entering our province.”

Saskatchewan has already budgeted $3.2 million to:

develop a Saskatchewan Firearms Ballistics Lab to support police and provide timely access to “Saskatchewan-based ballistics and firearms expertise”;
establish a Firearms Compensation Committee to determine the fair market value of any firearms, ammunition and related accessories being expropriated by the federal government;
enhance training and education on safe storage and firearms licensing; and
launch a made-in-Saskatchewan marketing campaign to promote firearm safety.

“Since inception, the Saskatchewan Firearms Office has successfully handled public safety files and continues to work closely with police to ensure that gun safety laws are properly enforced,” Chief Firearms Officer Robert Freberg said. “The enhanced mandate this legislation provides will expand our office's ability to promote responsible firearms use and improve community safety.”

This latest salvo in defence of the Charter rights of Saskatchewan gun owners makes them a clear front-runner for the title of “Freest Province in Canada.”