2023 UCP Alberta election

[Remius]

Jason Kenny called it “nuts” and “banana republic”

Bad legislation is still legislation. And this legislation looks bad.

 

[QV]

Other than repeating how bad the ASA appears to be, can anyone point out a particular part of that proposed legislation that is offensive?

 

[Lumber]

(She may want to rethink the name of the Act, but I think she’s tapped into a current sentiment across the country in which provinces want the power to say NO in situations where the federal government is overreaching, or otherwise seems to be making bad choices.)

They already HAVE that power. The constitution is clear, and if the Feds are overreaching, they have the power to bring it before the Supreme Court.

 

[IKnowNothing]

If her ability to lead and govern is in any way similar to her ability to fact check and use logic while writing her acceptance speech, I have very high expectations that we will see an NDP government in Alberta next year.

This article comes to mind immediately
Ken Boessenkool: Alberta isn't conservative

 

[Navy_Pete]

Other than repeating how bad the ASA appears to be, can anyone point out a particular part of that proposed legislation that is offensive?

Rather than use the courts, the proposal is to have legislators decide what not to enforce for federal responsibilities, and basically ignore things like from federal departments they don't like. Basically trying to create a provincial law that supercedes the federal laws, and also breaks the constitutional agreement between the Fed and provinces, as well as the role of courts/legislators.

I'm not even sure it would get through provinicial legislation, and/or get squashed by various courts. If it gets rejected as unconstitutional by the Supreme court, would they just try and ignore that anyway? Great way to become that general pariah for being the team idiot that the rest are always apologizing for.

Still doesn't change the fact that without vaccinations they still can't travel to countries that have vaccine mandates for foreign travelers, which is something that is continuously conflated with the provincial/federal pandemic direction. Aside from COVID, you have needed a variety of vaccines for getting into various countries anyway, and kids going to schools also have to show basic proof of vaccination.

 

[Halifax Tar]

This article comes to mind immediately
Ken Boessenkool: Alberta isn't conservative

Good Read, thanks for sharing.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Rather than use the courts, the proposal is to have legislators decide what not to enforce for federal responsibilities, and basically ignore things like from federal departments they don't like. Basically trying to create a provincial law that supercedes the federal laws, and also breaks the constitutional agreement between the Fed and provinces, as well as the role of courts/legislators.

I'm not even sure it would get through provinicial legislation, and/or get squashed by various courts. If it gets rejected as unconstitutional by the Supreme court, would they just try and ignore that anyway? Great way to become that general pariah for being the team idiot that the rest are always apologizing for.

Still doesn't change the fact that without vaccinations they still can't travel to countries that have vaccine mandates for foreign travelers, which is something that is continuously conflated with the provincial/federal pandemic direction. Aside from COVID, you have needed a variety of vaccines for getting into various countries anyway, and kids going to schools also have to show basic proof of vaccination.

You have to look at this like a chess game.

Scenario:

Smith and party decide not to follow a piece of federal legislation. The province in general agrees with the UPC. The province is taken or takes it to the CSC who strikes down Alberta.

Smith and party go back home and say see central Canada have no regard for Alberta.

Anger and calls for separation grow.

Referendum ensues.

It's not really about autonomy for Alberta WRT federal legislation or laws. It's about setting up the pieces for a full blown sovereignty movement. As this seems to be the way to empower a province in our confederation.

She's thinking two or three moves ahead. We will see if Ottawa has that kind of foresight in the coming months and years.

 

[Navy_Pete]

She's thinking two or three moves ahead. We will see if Ottawa has that kind of foresight in the coming months and years.

I don't think so; I think she's a pissed off checker player.

They could simply use the existing not-withstanding clause in the Constitution, which is what other provinces have already done to protect specific areas of provincial responsibility.

What they are proposing is straight up ignoring the Constitution on things that are specifically a federal responsibility; that puts them into the position of being a loud mouthed arsehole bargaining in bad faith.

The QC sovereignty movement eventually hit that same space, and the message at the time seemed to be 'we want you to stay, but if you do go, don't forget you are taking your share of the collective debt, and PS QC is divisible as well if the FN decide to stay in Canada'. Things generally go a lot worse in a divorce if you are on the lying/cheating spouse side of things.

 

[QV]

Rather than use the courts, the proposal is to have legislators decide what not to enforce for federal responsibilities, and basically ignore things like from federal departments they don't like. Basically trying to create a provincial law that supercedes the federal laws, and also breaks the constitutional agreement between the Fed and provinces, as well as the role of courts/legislators.

I'm not even sure it would get through provinicial legislation, and/or get squashed by various courts. If it gets rejected as unconstitutional by the Supreme court, would they just try and ignore that anyway? Great way to become that general pariah for being the team idiot that the rest are always apologizing for.

Still doesn't change the fact that without vaccinations they still can't travel to countries that have vaccine mandates for foreign travelers, which is something that is continuously conflated with the provincial/federal pandemic direction. Aside from COVID, you have needed a variety of vaccines for getting into various countries anyway, and kids going to schools also have to show basic proof of vaccination.

Well, not quite.

Basically when a federal move infringes on provincial jurisdiction the province will ignore it and force the feds to take them to court over it rather than it being implemented and then the province having to fight it in court while it's in play. The outcome is the same; courts. This way is just far less harmful to Alberta. If the SCC made a decision in favor of the Federal Government, then that's the decision.

The C19 jab/mandate argument is another subject.

 

[lenaitch]

Well, not quite.

Basically when a federal move infringes on provincial jurisdiction the province will ignore it and force the feds to take them to court over it rather than it being implemented and then the province having to fight it in court while it's in play. The outcome is the same; courts. This way is just far less harmful to Alberta. If the SCC made a decision in favor of the Federal Government, then that's the decision.

The C19 jab/mandate argument is another subject.

Is there an actual Bill before the Legislature or are we all just going on general statements from politicians?

From the link:

Danielle Smith releases overview of proposed Alberta sovereignty act

University of Calgary law professor Martin Olszynski said Smith is "wildly incorrect" about the Constitution, the Charter and the division of powers between…

edmontonjournal.com

"According to the overview, the act would affirm the authority of the legislature to refuse provincial enforcement of specific federal laws or policies “that violate the jurisdictional rights of Alberta” under the Constitution of Canada or Charter of Rights and Freedoms."​

What does that really mean? Does it attempt to declare a federal law invalid in its entirety, for all time? A particular section, this time? What are the "jurisdictional rights of Alberta" outside of Sec 92-93? Does she just want to opt out of, say, federal daycare funding? The Canada Health Act? Or be more like Quebec and just say give us unconditional money and bugger off?

 

[QV]

I'm basing my understanding off of the Free Alberta Strategy that introduces these ideas. The purpose of the ASA is to provide Alberta's elected body with the "authority to refuse enforcement of any specific Act of Parliament or federal court ruling that Alberta's elected body deemed to be a federal intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction, or unfairly prejudicial to the interests of Albertans."

I really like that someone is pushing boundaries against the gross overreach of the Trudeau lead federal government. Something like this, if successful, helps every province.

 

[Lumber]

I'm basing my understanding off of the Free Alberta Strategy that introduces these ideas. The purpose of the ASA is to provide Alberta's elected body with the "authority to refuse enforcement of any specific Act of Parliament or federal court ruling that Alberta's elected body deemed to be a federal intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction, or unfairly prejudicial to the interests of Albertans."

I really like that someone is pushing boundaries against the gross overreach of the Trudeau lead federal government. Something like this, if successful, helps every province.

The problem is that parliament is not supposed to have that power. If you pass a law, you need legal experts to determine if there's anything in there that conflicts with any other laws. Hence, the courts. If the Feds passed a law that legitimately infringed on Alberta's areas of responsibility IAW the constitution, then a court could issue a temporary stay of that law until a formal review/assessment can be done. You don't need or want the elected body to do that, because they aren't legal scholars. They aren't going to dig into the minutia of the constitution and make a wholesome assessment of whether or not this new Federal law actually infringes on Alberta's powers. Instead, you'll just get drummed up sycophants voting against anything they don't like, even if it's not infringing on Alberta's division of powers.

 

[QV]

The problem is that parliament is not supposed to have that power. If you pass a law, you need legal experts to determine if there's anything in there that conflicts with any other laws. Hence, the courts. If the Feds passed a law that legitimately infringed on Alberta's areas of responsibility IAW the constitution, then a court could issue a temporary stay of that law until a formal review/assessment can be done. You don't need or want the elected body to do that, because they aren't legal scholars. They aren't going to dig into the minutia of the constitution and make a wholesome assessment of whether or not this new Federal law actually infringes on Alberta's powers. Instead, you'll just get drummed up sycophants voting against anything they don't like, even if it's not infringing on Alberta's division of powers.

Such as this: https://albertacourts.ca/docs/defau...sment-act-2022-abca-165.pdf?sfvrsn=8eeea683_5

 

[Lumber]

Such as this: https://albertacourts.ca/docs/defau...sment-act-2022-abca-165.pdf?sfvrsn=8eeea683_5

Exactly! Look how complicated that situation was. Do you really want legislators trying to navigate that gobblygook? There are some smart legislators, there are even some that are lawyers, but there are none (IMO) that have the time and experience needed to adequately parse through all that.

 

[QV]

Exactly! Look how complicated that situation was. Do you really want legislators trying to navigate that gobblygook? There are some smart legislators, there are even some that are lawyers, but there are none (IMO) that have the time and experience needed to adequately parse through all that.

Good. I don’t want that kind of legislation in force for years and years while they debate whether it should be in force or not.

 

[lenaitch]

I'm basing my understanding off of the Free Alberta Strategy that introduces these ideas. The purpose of the ASA is to provide Alberta's elected body with the "authority to refuse enforcement of any specific Act of Parliament or federal court ruling that Alberta's elected body deemed to be a federal intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction, or unfairly prejudicial to the interests of Albertans."

I really like that someone is pushing boundaries against the gross overreach of the Trudeau lead federal government. Something like this, if successful, helps every province.

Such as this: https://albertacourts.ca/docs/defau...sment-act-2022-abca-165.pdf?sfvrsn=8eeea683_5

So, the way I interpret this, the Alberta court ruled that Ottawa was acting within its Constitutional authority, and therefore not a federal intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction. So the UCP wants the authority to disregard legislation (or court rulings) that it simply doesn't like? I wonder if it would decide that the abortion legislation (or lack thereof) or impaired driving laws are prejudicial to the interests of Albertans.

 

[QV]

So, the way I interpret this, the Alberta court ruled that Ottawa was acting within its Constitutional authority, and therefore not a federal intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction. So the UCP wants the authority to disregard legislation (or court rulings) that it simply doesn't like? I wonder if it would decide that the abortion legislation (or lack thereof) or impaired driving laws are prejudicial to the interests of Albertans.

The IAA is ultra vires Parliament. The majority states it’s unconstitutional. You‘re wrong on both assumptions.

 

[Lumber]

The IAA is ultra vires Parliament. The majority states it’s unconstitutional. You‘re wrong on both assumptions.

Ok so I'm confused by as to what your position is? First you indicated support for the sovereignty act, meaning that Alberta wouldn't need to use the courts to block federal laws, they would simply need provincial parliament to "vote" on blocking the laws, but now you seem to be espousing the use of the courts? Which is it? Do you want the courts to keep doing what they have been doing, or not?

 

[RangerRay]

Someone with deep roots in Alberta conservatism says Smith is a kamikaze pilot.

Ken Boessenkool: Premier Smith is a kamikaze mission aimed at the UCP, conservatism and Alberta

Only Rachel Notley can win.

theline.substack.com

 

[QV]

Ok so I'm confused by as to what your position is? First you indicated support for the sovereignty act, meaning that Alberta wouldn't need to use the courts to block federal laws, they would simply need provincial parliament to "vote" on blocking the laws, but now you seem to be espousing the use of the courts? Which is it? Do you want the courts to keep doing what they have been doing, or not?

Try to follow Lumber. I support the ASA because it allows the province to nullify harmful legislation and forces the federal government to initiate court action, the legislation wouldn’t be enforced until the courts sort it out. Presently, the harmful legislation would be in full force for years until a successful court challenge by the province, so a lot of the damage is done while things drag out in court. And when you have a federal government hostile to the province‘s very survival this is necessary. A liberal lead federal government would love nothing more than another broken province subservient to Ottawa handouts, like the maritimes, that is their key to maintaining power. Any province that is economically independent of Ottawa is a threat. The ASA will improve federation, not hurt it.