2023 UCP Alberta election

[Halifax Tar]

I hope she gets what she's after. If we aren't going to make federal elections more equal the next best move is more autonomy for the provinces.

Unfounded and misplaced fear of firearms in the golden horseshoe shouldn't be inflicted on Alberta, for example.

 

[QV]

Here it is.

https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_30/session_4/20221129_bill-001.pdf

 

[Remius]

It’s no coincidence that Kenney resigned as an MLA as this was being tabled…

 

[suffolkowner]

I hope she gets what she's after. If we aren't going to make federal elections more equal the next best move is more autonomy for the provinces.

Unfounded and misplaced fear of firearms in the golden horseshoe shouldn't be inflicted on Alberta, for example.

I agree to a large degree. There needs to be some pushback on the way Trudeau 2 is doing things. Even though I am a warmist and would have called myself a liberal in the past. On the twitter there was an article posted where it was stated that the PM had his restricted PAL. He is just doing this stuff as a wedge issue for voters not because he thinks it is right

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I agree to a large degree. There needs to be some pushback on the way Trudeau 2 is doing things. Even though I am a warmist and would have called myself a liberal in the past. On the twitter there was an article posted where it was stated that the PM had his restricted PAL. He is just doing this stuff as a wedge issue for voters not because he thinks it is right

Even if he has his PAL, do you seriously think he sat through the package and did the tests? Or he actually sat at his desk and successfully challenged the test? It's a political decision. He can look at a gun owner and say "I feel your pain. I have a PAL also."
His appointee, Brenda Lucki, runs the RCMP
The RCMP issues the PAL

 

[Brad Sallows]

Smith's sovereignty stuff belongs here, not in the gun thread.

So. Just noting that if some of the powers the proposed legislation grants to the premier and some other strap-hangers are what I read them to be, the legislation needs to be rejected. No point railing against the problem of the power of the PMO federally and then defending similar fuckery at the provincial level.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Smith's sovereignty stuff belongs here, not in the gun thread.

I agree. I asked a couple of times if it could be cleaned up and split off. Maybe you can try.

 

[QV]

Smith's sovereignty stuff belongs here, not in the gun thread.

So. Just noting that if some of the powers the proposed legislation grants to the premier and some other strap-hangers are what I read them to be, the legislation needs to be rejected. No point railing against the problem of the power of the PMO federally and then defending similar fuckery at the provincial level.

What's your solution to federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction?

 

[brihard]

What's your solution to federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction?

If it’s actually jurisdiction overreach, then the appropriate course of action is to challenge it in the courts with arguments based on Ss. 92 and 92A of the Constitution Act, which defines the exclusive powers of the provinces. The courts will adjudicate that. What Smith is doing is the exact opposite of seeking proper remedy on constitutional division of power concerns. She has pushed blatantly unconstitutional legislation, and it’s going to waste time and money and stoke further division.

 

[QV]

If it’s actually jurisdiction overreach, then the appropriate course of action is to challenge it in the courts with arguments based on Ss. 92 and 92A of the Constitution Act, which defines the exclusive powers of the provinces. The courts will adjudicate that. What Smith is doing is the exact opposite of seeking proper remedy on constitutional division of power concerns. She has pushed blatantly unconstitutional legislation, and it’s going to waste time and money and stoke further division.

No. This is forcing the federal government to initiate court proceedings when it wades into the province's jurisdiction. Before this act, the unconstitutional law or policy would be in play from the outset and damaging Alberta's interests (for years) until the province could bring it before a court for resolution. This act halts that until a court has ruled.

Here's an example. This law received Royal Assent in 2019: Alberta Court of Appeal finds the federal Impact Assessment Act unconstitutional | BD&P

The Court ultimately found that the Act and Regulations were a significant federal overreach into provincial affairs that went well beyond previous environmental legislation that the Supreme Court had upheld in cases like Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport).

 

[Halifax Tar]

If it’s actually jurisdiction overreach, then the appropriate course of action is to challenge it in the courts with arguments based on Ss. 92 and 92A of the Constitution Act, which defines the exclusive powers of the provinces. The courts will adjudicate that. What Smith is doing is the exact opposite of seeking proper remedy on constitutional division of power concerns. She has pushed blatantly unconstitutional legislation, and it’s going to waste time and money and stoke further division.

Someone has to stand up for Alberta. Seems to me the provincial leader seems like a good choice.

 

[brihard]

No. This is forcing the federal government to initiate court proceedings when it wades into the province's jurisdiction. Before this act, the unconstitutional law or policy would be in play from the outset and damaging Alberta's interests (for years) until the province could bring it before a court for resolution. This act halts that until a court has ruled.

Here's an example. This law received Royal Assent in 2019: Alberta Court of Appeal finds the federal Impact Assessment Act unconstitutional | BD&P

The Court ultimately found that the Act and Regulations were a significant federal overreach into provincial affairs that went well beyond previous environmental legislation that the Supreme Court had upheld in cases like Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport).

Such distinct overreach is rare, and we are more likely to see this used against federal laws the UCP simply, for political reasons, doesn’t like as opposed to cases where the feds enact laws their are truly ultra vires their powers under S. 91.

This law will lend itself to quick and successful challenge by the federal DOJ as soon as a case arises to bring it into court. There’s an uncommonly strong consensus by the legal profession on the manifest deficiencies of this law. Smith is going to come out of this looking foolish.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Such distinct overreach is rare, and we are more likely to see this used against federal laws the UCP simply, for political reasons, doesn’t like as opposed to cases where the feds enact laws their are truly ultra vires their powers under S. 91.

This law will lend itself to quick and successful challenge by the federal DOJ as soon as a case arises to bring it into court. There’s an uncommonly strong consensus by the legal profession on the manifest deficiencies of this law. Smith is going to come out of this looking foolish.

It depends on what side the table you sit on. She may also be seen as a political visionary or martyr to many.

She is a response to a disconnected political class and center. She's a symptom not a cause.

 

[Lumber]

No. This is forcing the federal government to initiate court proceedings when it wades into the province's jurisdiction. Before this act, the unconstitutional law or policy would be in play from the outset and damaging Alberta's interests (for years) until the province could bring it before a court for resolution. This act halts that until a court has ruled.

Here's an example. This law received Royal Assent in 2019: Alberta Court of Appeal finds the federal Impact Assessment Act unconstitutional | BD&P

The Court ultimately found that the Act and Regulations were a significant federal overreach into provincial affairs that went well beyond previous environmental legislation that the Supreme Court had upheld in cases like Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport).

You forget that it works both way. If the province enacted a law that was outside their powers, it would stay in effect until (if) the feds challenged it.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Even if he has his PAL, do you seriously think he sat through the package and did the tests? Or he actually sat at his desk and successfully challenged the test?

Not saying you're wrong, but ACTS and PROVE aren't exactly rocket surgery

 

[Brad Sallows]

If Smith wants to stand up for provincial sovereignty relative to the federal government, she should do that with a clean bill that just stands up for provincial sovereignty relative to the federal government.

But if this characterization is accurate ("Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's signature legislation would grant her cabinet new powers to bypass the legislative assembly and unilaterally amend provincial laws.") then the bill is polluted.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . Smith is going to come out of this looking foolish.

It won't be her first kick at that particular can. However, she probably doesn't care. She does have a long political history of seizing defeat from the jaws of victory usually by letting ideology and ambition interfere with pragmatism.

 

[QV]

If Smith wants to stand up for provincial sovereignty relative to the federal government, she should do that with a clean bill that just stands up for provincial sovereignty relative to the federal government.

But if this characterization is accurate ("Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's signature legislation would grant her cabinet new powers to bypass the legislative assembly and unilaterally amend provincial laws.") then the bill is polluted.

I’m going to go ahead and suggest that characterization by the deputy leader of the NDP in that CBC article is not accurate. The link to the legislation is up thread.

Here‘s another opinion: much better article then CBC trash

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not saying you're wrong, but ACTS and PROVE aren't exactly rocket surgery

Totally beside the point.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Smith is going to come out of this looking foolish.

I doubt it. Not to her constituents anyway and that is really all that matters. Nobody gives a shit what the PMO and his MSM think. If she can back him down on one big thing, she's a winner. The people in Alberta have had enough. They don't care if it's Constitutional or not.