ALBERTA FIREWALL
Kenney says won't stay quiet as possible successor pitches separation planCOMES BACK TO BITE YA
Tue, September 6, 2022
EDMONTON — Premier Jason Kenney says his party was founded on a strong Alberta within Confederation and he won’t sit idly by while one of the candidates vying to replace him pitches a "risky, dangerous, half-baked" and "banana republic" plan for more provincial independence.
Kenney was commenting Tuesday on a promise by Danielle Smith to immediately introduce what she calls an Alberta sovereignty act this fall, promising her government would ignore federal laws and court rulings it deems against Alberta's best interest.
“The so-called sovereignty act would effectively take us to the brink of separation from the Canadian federation, would shred the rule of law and would do devastating damage to jobs, the economy and the prospect of pipelines,” Kenney said at a news conference in Calgary.
Kenney said while he shares the frustration of some Albertans with federal policies under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “I have always been unapologetically a Canadian patriot."
“I’m not about to become spineless on my patriotism or my support for the rule of law because somebody in a leadership campaign disagrees.”
The Alberta sovereignty act is the signature platform promise of Smith, the former Wildrose party leader.
Smith announced the plan in June, grabbing headlines and large crowds at party events. She has since been the focus of attacks from most of the other six candidates, leading to the perception she is the front-runner to replace Kenney as United Conservative Party leader and premier when the votes are counted Oct. 6.
Ballots began being mailed out last week.
Smith has said the bill is needed to declare a shock to a “lawless” federal government passing policies she claims are profoundly undercutting Alberta’s energy development.
Alberta announced last week it expects to take in a record $28.4 billion in non-renewable resource revenue this budget year.
Smith, in a statement earlier Tuesday, reiterated that her government would only use the sovereignty act sparingly, subject to a free vote in the house, in situations where it believes its constitutional rights have been violated.
She said if the federal government doesn’t like it, it can take Alberta to court.
The plan, she said, is not about leaving Confederation, but in fact saving it.
“The restoration and reassertion of provincial rights across our country will protect all provinces from the destructive outreach of Ottawa, and is likely the only viable way for Canada to remain a unified nation," she wrote.
Government house leader Jason Nixon and Kenney have questioned whether the act would even pass in the house. Lieut.-Gov. Salma Lakhani said last week she is duty-bound to refuse to sign into law any bill offside with the Constitution.
Smith has accused Kenney of breaking his promise to be impartial in the leadership race, but Kenney said he is simply defending his government’s policies.
Two law professors say Smith’s plan would be a fundamental betrayal of the rule of law — and an unnecessary one.
Martin Olszynski, with the University of Calgary, said provinces have the power now to challenge the federal government through the courts, and can seek immediate remedies and injunctions if necessary while the cases move through the legal system.
“We don’t decide the constitutionality of laws by vote — popular or otherwise. That’s not how it works in a functioning democracy,” said Olszynski, with the University of Calgary.
“That’s fundamentally what Smith rejects. She rejects the idea that an independent court would make these decisions.
"She wants to make these decisions.”
Eric Adams, with the University of Alberta, said if the province wants to start ignoring the Constitution, then the issue becomes one of separation or sovereignty-association, and should be addressed as such.
“Those are issues that should be put honestly, squarely, and directly to the Alberta public,” said Adams.
“The idea that an individual who wins a leadership race takes control of a party and then places a particular province on the road to a kind of quasi-independence is just so completely unprecedented in Canadian constitutional history.
“In my view, (it’s) deeply undemocratic.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 6, 2022.
Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press
Tue, September 6, 2022
EDMONTON — Premier Jason Kenney says his party was founded on a strong Alberta within Confederation and he won’t sit idly by while one of the candidates vying to replace him pitches a "risky, dangerous, half-baked" and "banana republic" plan for more provincial independence.
Kenney was commenting Tuesday on a promise by Danielle Smith to immediately introduce what she calls an Alberta sovereignty act this fall, promising her government would ignore federal laws and court rulings it deems against Alberta's best interest.
“The so-called sovereignty act would effectively take us to the brink of separation from the Canadian federation, would shred the rule of law and would do devastating damage to jobs, the economy and the prospect of pipelines,” Kenney said at a news conference in Calgary.
Kenney said while he shares the frustration of some Albertans with federal policies under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “I have always been unapologetically a Canadian patriot."
“I’m not about to become spineless on my patriotism or my support for the rule of law because somebody in a leadership campaign disagrees.”
The Alberta sovereignty act is the signature platform promise of Smith, the former Wildrose party leader.
Smith announced the plan in June, grabbing headlines and large crowds at party events. She has since been the focus of attacks from most of the other six candidates, leading to the perception she is the front-runner to replace Kenney as United Conservative Party leader and premier when the votes are counted Oct. 6.
Ballots began being mailed out last week.
Smith has said the bill is needed to declare a shock to a “lawless” federal government passing policies she claims are profoundly undercutting Alberta’s energy development.
Alberta announced last week it expects to take in a record $28.4 billion in non-renewable resource revenue this budget year.
Smith, in a statement earlier Tuesday, reiterated that her government would only use the sovereignty act sparingly, subject to a free vote in the house, in situations where it believes its constitutional rights have been violated.
She said if the federal government doesn’t like it, it can take Alberta to court.
The plan, she said, is not about leaving Confederation, but in fact saving it.
“The restoration and reassertion of provincial rights across our country will protect all provinces from the destructive outreach of Ottawa, and is likely the only viable way for Canada to remain a unified nation," she wrote.
Government house leader Jason Nixon and Kenney have questioned whether the act would even pass in the house. Lieut.-Gov. Salma Lakhani said last week she is duty-bound to refuse to sign into law any bill offside with the Constitution.
Smith has accused Kenney of breaking his promise to be impartial in the leadership race, but Kenney said he is simply defending his government’s policies.
Two law professors say Smith’s plan would be a fundamental betrayal of the rule of law — and an unnecessary one.
Martin Olszynski, with the University of Calgary, said provinces have the power now to challenge the federal government through the courts, and can seek immediate remedies and injunctions if necessary while the cases move through the legal system.
“We don’t decide the constitutionality of laws by vote — popular or otherwise. That’s not how it works in a functioning democracy,” said Olszynski, with the University of Calgary.
“That’s fundamentally what Smith rejects. She rejects the idea that an independent court would make these decisions.
"She wants to make these decisions.”
Eric Adams, with the University of Alberta, said if the province wants to start ignoring the Constitution, then the issue becomes one of separation or sovereignty-association, and should be addressed as such.
“Those are issues that should be put honestly, squarely, and directly to the Alberta public,” said Adams.
“The idea that an individual who wins a leadership race takes control of a party and then places a particular province on the road to a kind of quasi-independence is just so completely unprecedented in Canadian constitutional history.
“In my view, (it’s) deeply undemocratic.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 6, 2022.
Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press
Danielle Smith releases overview of proposed Alberta sovereignty act
UCP leadership candidate Danielle Smith’s promised Alberta sovereignty act has “dubious constitutionality,” law experts say.
UCP leadership candidate Danielle Smith speaks at a campaign rally in Chestermere on Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2022.
On Tuesday, Smith released an overview of the proposed act, which she says would be used to defend the province from “Ottawa’s continuous economic and constitutional attacks.”
“The majority of Albertans are frustrated with the ineffective letter writing campaigns and empty rhetoric employed by past premiers in dealing with attacks on Alberta by our federal government, and want effective action to deal with the ‘Ottawa Problem’ without further delay,” Smith said in a news release.
“Tens of thousands of Albertans have embraced the idea of the Alberta Sovereignty Act, and many more are open to learning more about how it could be practically and effectively deployed.”
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.
The act’s objective is not to separate from Canada but to assert Alberta’s constitutional rights “to the furthest extent possible by effectively governing itself as a nation within a nation.”
Related
Alberta's Lt.-Gov. says she's willing to toss Smith's sovereignty act if unconstitutional
Anna Junker Edmonton Journal
UCP leadership candidate Danielle Smith’s promised Alberta sovereignty act has “dubious constitutionality,” law experts say.
UCP leadership candidate Danielle Smith speaks at a campaign rally in Chestermere on Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2022.
On Tuesday, Smith released an overview of the proposed act, which she says would be used to defend the province from “Ottawa’s continuous economic and constitutional attacks.”
“The majority of Albertans are frustrated with the ineffective letter writing campaigns and empty rhetoric employed by past premiers in dealing with attacks on Alberta by our federal government, and want effective action to deal with the ‘Ottawa Problem’ without further delay,” Smith said in a news release.
“Tens of thousands of Albertans have embraced the idea of the Alberta Sovereignty Act, and many more are open to learning more about how it could be practically and effectively deployed.”
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.
The act’s objective is not to separate from Canada but to assert Alberta’s constitutional rights “to the furthest extent possible by effectively governing itself as a nation within a nation.”
Related
Alberta's Lt.-Gov. says she's willing to toss Smith's sovereignty act if unconstitutional
Rachel Notley: The Sovereignty Act is a dangerous distraction that threatens Alberta’s future
University of Alberta professor and constitutional law expert Eric Adams has concerns with the proposed legislation.
“I think the concept in and of itself, is of dubious constitutionality,” said Adams.
“It’s all well and fine for Ms. Smith to declare that it is constitutional, but any time you have one level of government claiming that it has the power to refuse the lawful enactments of another level of government or to be the institution in charge of determining what’s constitutional or not, then you raise a number of constitutional problems that the details probably can’t save.”
If the federal government institutes a law or policy that appears to violate Alberta’s jurisdiction rights, according to Smith’s overview, the Alberta government may introduce a “special motion” for a free vote of all MLAs.
The special motion would identify the law or policy believed to be in violation of the Constitution or Charter, include an explanation of the harms it would inflict on Albertans, and detail specific actions the province and its agencies will take to refuse or otherwise oppose enforcement in Alberta.
The special motion would also declare that by the authority of the act, the law or policy in question will not be enforced within Alberta, as outlined in the motion. Finally, she said, a review and debate of whether or not to amend, end, or continue the actions outlined in the special motion would be scheduled within two years, or within 90 days of a court order staying the special motion or declaring it unconstitutional itself, whichever is sooner.
While invoking the act will “likely be done relatively sparingly,” the overview outlines a number of areas where the act could be used. This includes federal mandatory vaccination policies, the use of the Emergencies Act to jail and freeze accounts of peaceful protestors, and mandatory emissions and production cuts to Alberta energy companies.
Smith ‘wildly incorrect’ says law professor
Adams said Smith is claiming the party has the power of a court of law to determine what is or is not contrary to the Charter.
“It points to, I think, the danger of a politician claiming that she has the authority and the monopoly on determining which laws she says are constitutional or not,” Adams said. “We have a process to do that in our system of government, and it’s the courts.”
University of Calgary law professor Martin Olszynski said Smith is “wildly incorrect” about the Constitution, the Charter and the division of powers between them. He said provinces can already use the courts to challenge laws believed to be unconstitutional and seek a temporary stay on the law in question.
“There’s absolutely no merit to what Ms. Smith is saying or suggesting, it is not the case that the federal government can act unlawfully and wait for years to have its comeuppance,” he said. “It just means that you have to use the tools that are available to you.”
He notes it is also concerning that if the act is passed and found unconstitutional, Alberta could use the same act to ignore the court’s decision.
“We would be a failed democracy at that point. We would be a lawless state,” Olszynksi said. “Governments and legislators can’t just ignore the courts. You’re no longer dealing with a democracy and the rule of law at that point.”
Political scientist Lisa Young said the proposed act is appealing to many of the worst fears of Smith’s supporters.
“What Danielle Smith has done here is to take us another step further on this path to fantasy federalism, where she now claims that there are threats out there and that the Alberta legislature can somehow neutralize these threats,” she said. “Both of those things are not true.”
During an unrelated press conference Tuesday, Premier Jason Kenney commented on the sovereignty act as first proposed by Free Alberta Strategy , saying it is “catastrophically stupid” and would lead to Alberta becoming a “banana republic.”
Kenney, who recently returned from a trip to South Korea to promote investment in Alberta, said such legislation would be “kryptonite” for investors. He would vote against the bill if it comes forward in the legislature.
“They’re interested in political stability, not political chaos,” he said. “They’re interested in a jurisdiction that respects the rule of law and the authority of the courts.”
ajunker@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/JunkerAnna
University of Alberta professor and constitutional law expert Eric Adams has concerns with the proposed legislation.
“I think the concept in and of itself, is of dubious constitutionality,” said Adams.
“It’s all well and fine for Ms. Smith to declare that it is constitutional, but any time you have one level of government claiming that it has the power to refuse the lawful enactments of another level of government or to be the institution in charge of determining what’s constitutional or not, then you raise a number of constitutional problems that the details probably can’t save.”
If the federal government institutes a law or policy that appears to violate Alberta’s jurisdiction rights, according to Smith’s overview, the Alberta government may introduce a “special motion” for a free vote of all MLAs.
The special motion would identify the law or policy believed to be in violation of the Constitution or Charter, include an explanation of the harms it would inflict on Albertans, and detail specific actions the province and its agencies will take to refuse or otherwise oppose enforcement in Alberta.
The special motion would also declare that by the authority of the act, the law or policy in question will not be enforced within Alberta, as outlined in the motion. Finally, she said, a review and debate of whether or not to amend, end, or continue the actions outlined in the special motion would be scheduled within two years, or within 90 days of a court order staying the special motion or declaring it unconstitutional itself, whichever is sooner.
While invoking the act will “likely be done relatively sparingly,” the overview outlines a number of areas where the act could be used. This includes federal mandatory vaccination policies, the use of the Emergencies Act to jail and freeze accounts of peaceful protestors, and mandatory emissions and production cuts to Alberta energy companies.
Smith ‘wildly incorrect’ says law professor
Adams said Smith is claiming the party has the power of a court of law to determine what is or is not contrary to the Charter.
“It points to, I think, the danger of a politician claiming that she has the authority and the monopoly on determining which laws she says are constitutional or not,” Adams said. “We have a process to do that in our system of government, and it’s the courts.”
University of Calgary law professor Martin Olszynski said Smith is “wildly incorrect” about the Constitution, the Charter and the division of powers between them. He said provinces can already use the courts to challenge laws believed to be unconstitutional and seek a temporary stay on the law in question.
“There’s absolutely no merit to what Ms. Smith is saying or suggesting, it is not the case that the federal government can act unlawfully and wait for years to have its comeuppance,” he said. “It just means that you have to use the tools that are available to you.”
He notes it is also concerning that if the act is passed and found unconstitutional, Alberta could use the same act to ignore the court’s decision.
“We would be a failed democracy at that point. We would be a lawless state,” Olszynksi said. “Governments and legislators can’t just ignore the courts. You’re no longer dealing with a democracy and the rule of law at that point.”
Political scientist Lisa Young said the proposed act is appealing to many of the worst fears of Smith’s supporters.
“What Danielle Smith has done here is to take us another step further on this path to fantasy federalism, where she now claims that there are threats out there and that the Alberta legislature can somehow neutralize these threats,” she said. “Both of those things are not true.”
During an unrelated press conference Tuesday, Premier Jason Kenney commented on the sovereignty act as first proposed by Free Alberta Strategy , saying it is “catastrophically stupid” and would lead to Alberta becoming a “banana republic.”
Kenney, who recently returned from a trip to South Korea to promote investment in Alberta, said such legislation would be “kryptonite” for investors. He would vote against the bill if it comes forward in the legislature.
“They’re interested in political stability, not political chaos,” he said. “They’re interested in a jurisdiction that respects the rule of law and the authority of the courts.”
ajunker@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/JunkerAnna
No comments:
Post a Comment