2023 UCP Alberta election

[brihard]

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.”

Interesting approach. I’ll be really curious to see how that plays out. I can already anticipate an argument from the feds that this would be encroachment on the federal authority to legislate and regulate on criminal matters, while the province will argue that it primarily has to do with the provincial authority over property. Both will be correct to some extent, and we’ll likely see this hashed out in court over quite a length of time.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Interesting approach. I’ll be really curious to see how that plays out. I can already anticipate an argument from the feds that this would be encroachment on the federal authority to legislate and regulate on criminal matters, while the province will argue that it primarily has to do with the provincial authority over property. Both will be correct to some extent, and we’ll likely see this hashed out in court over quite a length of time.

Agreed. I wanna see this one play out. Im probably sounding like a broken record but I work like to see more autonomy for the provinces.

With specific reference to the firearms legislation I'm now seeing correspondence that even the NDP have said they won't support it. Have the LPC fully out left flanked the NDP ?

It's looking more and more lik JT and crew will either have to eat crow or make this the hill they are willing to let their gov die on.

 

[CBH99]

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.

Guilty as charged.

I actually hadn’t thought of the legal framework of the proposed legislation, and how different it actually would be compared to how legislation is usually passed.

The way you & Brihard explained it, definitely gives me some good insight into why there are concerns.


I’m still supportive of the idea of the provinces having more autonomy than they currently do, and it looks like our flat province next door feels the same way.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Agreed. I wanna see this one play out. Im probably sounding like a broken record but I work like to see more autonomy for the provinces.

In the context of this discussion I have to ask, what does this mean to you? Being in favour of a broad-form redrawing of the division of powers to completely re-shape the nature of the Provincial-Federal Relationship (and indeed change the entire fabric of the country)?
Have the provinces selectively push back on things that are clearly Federal jurisdiction that they don't like?
Somewhere in between?

Where does it stop? Would it be a good thing if we had a Conservative Majority in favour of natural resource expansion and BC/Ontario/Quebev used their autonomy to block getting it to sea?

When does a country of 13 Quebec envy fueled, now enabled, snowflake provinces stop being a country?

 

[CBH99]

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

I know some of these posts probably belong in the LPC thread - I'm not trying to detail, but I'm learning a lot today.

So what is the consequence of being held in contempt of Parliament?

If the speaker of the house holds the government in contempt of Parliament, is the government able to just say "Oops, sorry. So anyways..."

Or are there tangible mechanisms available to help hold some.form of accountability

 

[Halifax Tar]

In the context of this discussion I have to ask, what does this mean to you? Being in favour of a broad-form redrawing of the division of powers lines to completely re-shape the nature of the Provincial-Federal Relationship (and indeed change the entire fabric of the country), have the provinces selectively push back on things that are clearly Federal jurisdiction that they don't like, somewhere in between?

Where does it stop? Would it be a good thing if we had a Conservative Majority in favour of natural resource expansion and BC/Ontario used their autonomy to block getting it to sea?

When does a country of 13 Quebec envy fueled, enabled snowflake provinces stop being a country?

Fair question. I think in general provinces should be deciding the vast majority of the legislation. Things like drug legalization, sex work, guns ect ect should be decided at the provincial level.

With the Feds looking and working on matters outside the country, like defence and international trade agreements, and acting as the unbiased arbiter for inter provincial squabbles.

I think in general the Provinces should be driving the ship. With the Feds acting internationally on the macro level and the municipals working locally on the micro level.

In my perfect Canada I would even like to see the provinces take some National Defence responsibility like the National Guard in the US.

 

[Good2Golf]

I know some of these posts probably belong in the LPC thread - I'm not trying to detail, but I'm learning a lot today.

Not my intent either, at least not directly.

So what is the consequence of being held in contempt of Parliament?

If the speaker of the house holds the government in contempt of Parliament, is the government able to just say "Oops, sorry. So anyways..."

Or are there tangible mechanisms available to help hold some.form of accountability

It can lead to a vote of non-confidence, which in the case of the Trudeau Governments refusal in summer 2021 to provide the House with details of the Chinese nationals authorized by the government to work in the Winnipeg NML, the NDP supported the LPC to vote down the non-confidence vote. The similar process happened in 2011, when MPs in a costing committee asked for but said they didn’t receive documents requested of Harper’s Government. The conservative majority voted down the associated non-confidence vote.

So, it would depend how the federal government/coalition of the day voted a non-confidence issue, although I don’t know if there’s a cross-cutting Fed/Provincial contempt process…

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Nobody Shows up to NDP anti-Sovereignty Act Protest

"An NDP-led protest against Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s proposed Sovereignty Act legislation was a major flop, with only a handful of attendees showing up. "

Nobody shows up to NDP anti-Sovereignty Act protest - The Counter Signal

An NDP-led protest against Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's proposed Sovereignty Act legislation was a major flop, with only a handful of attendees showing up.

thecountersignal.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/proposed-amendment-to-alberta-sovereignty-act-removes-unilateral-lawmaking-power-of-cabinet-1.6675001

 

[mariomike]

My sister is an Albertan. Never asked what her provincial politics are.

All I know about their politics is what gets posted on here, and in the news.

Around 90 people gathered at the Alberta Legislature on Sunday to protest Premier Danielle Smith's proposed Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act. A counter-protest of roughly the same size also took to the grounds, in support of the controversial legislation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/protests-sovereignty-act-alberta-1.6674147

Despite popular belief, the Alberta Sovereignty Act doesn't actually do anything (really)

It turns out provinces have always been able to openly disregard federal laws.

nationalpost.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting approach. I’ll be really curious to see how that plays out. I can already anticipate an argument from the feds that this would be encroachment on the federal authority to legislate and regulate on criminal matters, while the province will argue that it primarily has to do with the provincial authority over property. Both will be correct to some extent, and we’ll likely see this hashed out in court over quite a length of time.

I think the purpose is to bog down the Feds and make as painful as possible.

 

[brihard]

I think the purpose is to bog down the Feds and make as painful as possible.

Yeah, that’s the feel I’ve got too. It seems to imagine the feds creating some sort of new class of employee or contractor who would be responsible for administering a firearms confiscation/turn-in program, or alternatively to force the feds to do it through the Firearms Officers or RCMP.

I read through the bill in its entirety, and it’s a master class in how to create something whose explicit purpose is to utterly bog things down bureaucratically. It proposes to establish a series of limitations and restrictions on the conduct of firearms seizure work that’s designed to make it as difficult as possible to do the actual task. It’s quite blatantly a weaponization of bureaucracy to frustrate another level of government. I can see a couple ways around it and I can imagine a few of the potential legal challenges, but Sk is clearly looking to put up a reasonably intelligent fight on this.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yeah, that’s the feel I’ve got too. It seems to imagine the feds creating some sort of new class of employee or contractor who would be responsible for administering a firearms confiscation/turn-in program, or alternatively to force the feds to do it through the Firearms Officers or RCMP.

I read through the bill in its entirety, and it’s a master class in how to create something whose explicit purpose is to utterly bog things down bureaucratically. It proposes to establish a series of limitations and restrictions on the conduct of firearms seizure work that’s designed to make it as difficult as possible to do the actual task. It’s quite blatantly a weaponization of bureaucracy to frustrate another level of government. I can see a couple ways around it and I can imagine a few of the potential legal challenges, but Sk is clearly looking to put up a reasonably intelligent fight on this.

I'm now hopeful that they wont need it. As even the leftist CBC is scratching its head over this firearms legislation and it seems the LPC is losing NDP support for this.

With any luck JT may show some leadership and suck back and reload.

 

[brihard]

I'm now hopeful that they wont need it. As even the leftist CBC is scratching its head over this firearms legislation and it seems the LPC is losing NDP support for this.

With any luck JT may show some leadership and suck back and reload.

The law goes retroactive a couple of years and applies itself to seizures pursuant to reclassification of firearms on or after May 2020. It’s not just about what the federal government are currently doing.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The law goes retroactive a couple of years and applies itself to seizures pursuant to reclassification of firearms on or after May 2020. It’s not just about what the federal government are currently doing.

Understood. I'm just hoping we may see some de-escalation on the horizon.

 

[Lumber]

Fair question. I think in general provinces should be deciding the vast majority of the legislation. Things like drug legalization, sex work, guns ect ect should be decided at the provincial level.

I’m still supportive of the idea of the provinces having more autonomy than they currently do, and it looks like our flat province next door feels the same way.

I'm still curious to see what powers you two would like the provinces to have in order to have more "autonomy". @Halifax Tar I see your recommendation on drugs, sex work, and guns, and while I disagree and don't think that those should be devolved to the provinces (except guns), I appreciate you at least offering something.

To simplify things, have a look at the powers that the Feds currently hold. Which of these do you think should shift to the provinces?

Section 91:

1A. The Public Debt and Property
2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce
2A. Unemployment insurance
3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation
4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit
5. Postal Service
6. The Census and Statistics
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence
8. Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada
9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island
10. Navigation and Shipping
11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals
12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries
13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces
14. Currency and Coinage
15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money
16. Savings Banks
17. Weights and Measure
18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes
19. Interest
20. Legal Tender
21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency
22. Patents of Invention and Discovery
23. Copyrights
24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians
25. Naturalization and Aliens
26. Marriage and Divorce
27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters
28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries

PLUS
Section 92(10)(a to c): Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes: (a to c basically says anything that crosses provincial boundaries or has a national interest)

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm still curious to see what powers you two would like the provinces to have in order to have more "autonomy". @Halifax Tar I see your recommendation on drugs, sex work, and guns, and while I disagree and don't think that those should be devolved to the provinces (except guns), I appreciate you at least offering something.

To simplify things, have a look at the powers that the Feds currently hold. Which of these do you think should shift to the provinces?

Section 91:

1A. The Public Debt and Property
2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce
2A. Unemployment insurance
3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation
4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit
5. Postal Service - Do we still need a national postal service ?
6. The Census and Statistics
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence - I also said "In my perfect Canada I would even like to see the provinces take some National Defence responsibility like the National Guard in the US."
8. Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada
9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island
10. Navigation and Shipping
11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals
12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries
13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces
14. Currency and Coinage
15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money
16. Savings Banks
17. Weights and Measure
18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes
19. Interest
20. Legal Tender
21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency
22. Patents of Invention and Discovery
23. Copyrights
24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians
25. Naturalization and Aliens
26. Marriage and Divorce - This should be a provincial matter
27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters
28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries

PLUS
Section 92(10)(a to c): Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes: (a to c basically says anything that crosses provincial boundaries or has a national interest)

I never said the Feds have no role to play. I don't really have much issue with that list.

I think you we will find most of my issue the federal legislation in serial 27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters. A law that makes sense in golden horseshoe may not make sense in the outer regions of the country, thus provinces should be allowed to legislate their people as best suits them. Firearms is dead horse I will continue to drag out.

But arguments could be made as well for drug use (See BC and their recent moves) and sex work, to quote Voldemort “There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”.

 

[CBH99]

I would basically mirror what Halifax Tar said above.

I, too, very much see an important role for the feds in large parts of our generally well functioning society.

But we are a large country, and the dynamics of a problem in one part of the country might be very different than those of a similar problem in another part. (I.e. homelessness in Vancouver compared to homelessness in Edmonton or Red Deer.)



I think the provinces should have the mechanisms in place to implement their own approach to a specific issue that makes sense to them.

(For example this new firearms legislation is bound to affect people living in the NWT far differently than it will someone living in Vancouver)



@Lumber I'm curious to hear your take on this issue, since you definitely have a far better understanding of the legal/constitutional aspects at play here

What are your thoughts on Sask implementing its own firearms legislation, or Alberta wanting to do something similar with its proposed legislation? What are your concerns?

(I am learning a lot about the legal structures/considerations behind these decisions in this chat)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I would basically mirror what Halifax Tar said above.

I, too, very much see an important role for the feds in large parts of our generally well functioning society.

But we are a large country, and the dynamics of a problem in one part of the country might be very different than those of a similar problem in another part. (I.e. homelessness in Vancouver compared to homelessness in Edmonton or Red Deer.)



I think the provinces should have the mechanisms in place to implement their own approach to a specific issue that makes sense to them.

(For example this new firearms legislation is bound to affect people living in the NWT far differently than it will someone living in Vancouver)



@Lumber I'm curious to hear your take on this issue, since you definitely have a far better understanding of the legal/constitutional aspects at play here

What are your thoughts on Sask implementing its own firearms legislation, or Alberta wanting to do something similar with its proposed legislation? What are your concerns?

(I am learning a lot about the legal structures/considerations behind these decisions in this chat)

But we don't have a generally well functioning society at the moment.

It looks like Saskatchewan is also looking at sovereignty legislation. The problem I see is that the western provinces don't have the population or ridings to really hurt the liberals. The west is just too blasé to really worry about.

Now, if Ontario, with half the Canadian population, decided to go down this path, trudeau would be shitting his pants.

 

[Good2Golf]

Now, if Ontario, with half the Canadian population, decided to go down this path, trudeau would be shitting his pants.

You know, FJ, I’m not sure his hubris lets him see things in any other way than how he wishes them to be.