Bill 1 for the government of Danielle Smith was the oft-derided and much reviled Alberta Sovereignty Act. Retired judges said it was fine, authorities in constitutional law said it was illegal, others lit their hair on fire..Frankly, I found the original version of the bill a bit hard to follow. Who was able to do what to whom was not clear to me. But, that has been resolved. What was agreed on by everyone from the beginning was that whatever Alberta did, it could not defy Canada’s constitution. That seems reasonable and I will come back to this..In the course of my retirement, I've had the privilege of teaching a bunch of keen, young students my version of the history of the world. The parents of these children are very brave in this indulgence, and I try to stick to what is demonstrably true..One of the things that is true is the Canadian constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights and Freedoms. Anyone who has read the Canadian constitution knows it's like a bowl of spaghetti, in that it has undergone several amendments and there are no straight lines from 1867 until 1982. I suppose this has the salutary effect of giving lawyers ongoing sources of income. All this to say that I do my best to make some sense of the document for the students..We pay particular attention to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that the clauses can be compared against the Magna Carta. Throwing in a few anecdotes about the events at Runnymede in 1215 relieves the boredom..With the response to COVID, we have been able to identify the departures from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms visited upon us by the federal government. Some of those departures have been papered over by various emergency statutes but none of them have met the hurdles built into the Charter itself — at least from my perspective..At this point I have a vision of John Diefenbaker shaking his wattles at me and saying a mere engineer is incapable of plumbing the depths of this area of constitutional law. And he is right..But the nuances of the Charter are actually not so nuanced to a group of 11 to 14 year olds and when the words of the Charter do not align with the world in which they live. They are happy to cry foul. Efforts to tell them, “it's actually fair, but you are too young to understand that what seems unfair is really quite fair if you know all the right clauses of the constitution,” is met with a charge of this being, in the words of one of my immortal professors, mental masturbation..This brings me back to Alberta conforming itself to the constitution under the terms of the Alberta Sovereignty Act. Of course, it must do so. But if there is a dispute about federal legislation and Alberta says no to following it, who is to sort it out? The Supreme Court of course. And how long does it take to bring such things to the Supreme Court?.If you said years then you are quite right. And during those years, who forces Alberta to cease and desist or follow the track desired by the federal government. Well, no one actually. And isn’t this the modus operandi of the federal government? To force the province to react to its pronouncements which may or may not be constitutional? To be conformed to their legislation while the courts sort it out? This is not illegal or immoral. This is the way the system works, and it is a pretty good system..By way of example, Bill C-69 has been found to be unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Appeals and it will be another year before the case is heard by the Supreme Court..But, the bill received Royal Assent in June of 2019 so that will be almost five years of following a potentially unconstitutional law. If the appeal is upheld in the Supreme Court, then it will be another year or two before a new bill is developed. Why didn’t Alberta just say no to the legislation as it impacts Alberta and force the federal government to sue the province?.In this case the provincial rather than the federal government would have enjoyed the last four years awaiting a Supreme Court decision..Surely it makes good sense for the province to be proactive and use the federal government's own lawfare strategy? The residents of Quebec seem to appreciate this strategy. Why wouldn’t we in Alberta?.I am pleased our government is finally thinking strategically. As I understand it, the Alberta Sovereignty Act moves the advantage to Alberta..I like that.
Bill 1 for the government of Danielle Smith was the oft-derided and much reviled Alberta Sovereignty Act. Retired judges said it was fine, authorities in constitutional law said it was illegal, others lit their hair on fire..Frankly, I found the original version of the bill a bit hard to follow. Who was able to do what to whom was not clear to me. But, that has been resolved. What was agreed on by everyone from the beginning was that whatever Alberta did, it could not defy Canada’s constitution. That seems reasonable and I will come back to this..In the course of my retirement, I've had the privilege of teaching a bunch of keen, young students my version of the history of the world. The parents of these children are very brave in this indulgence, and I try to stick to what is demonstrably true..One of the things that is true is the Canadian constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights and Freedoms. Anyone who has read the Canadian constitution knows it's like a bowl of spaghetti, in that it has undergone several amendments and there are no straight lines from 1867 until 1982. I suppose this has the salutary effect of giving lawyers ongoing sources of income. All this to say that I do my best to make some sense of the document for the students..We pay particular attention to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that the clauses can be compared against the Magna Carta. Throwing in a few anecdotes about the events at Runnymede in 1215 relieves the boredom..With the response to COVID, we have been able to identify the departures from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms visited upon us by the federal government. Some of those departures have been papered over by various emergency statutes but none of them have met the hurdles built into the Charter itself — at least from my perspective..At this point I have a vision of John Diefenbaker shaking his wattles at me and saying a mere engineer is incapable of plumbing the depths of this area of constitutional law. And he is right..But the nuances of the Charter are actually not so nuanced to a group of 11 to 14 year olds and when the words of the Charter do not align with the world in which they live. They are happy to cry foul. Efforts to tell them, “it's actually fair, but you are too young to understand that what seems unfair is really quite fair if you know all the right clauses of the constitution,” is met with a charge of this being, in the words of one of my immortal professors, mental masturbation..This brings me back to Alberta conforming itself to the constitution under the terms of the Alberta Sovereignty Act. Of course, it must do so. But if there is a dispute about federal legislation and Alberta says no to following it, who is to sort it out? The Supreme Court of course. And how long does it take to bring such things to the Supreme Court?.If you said years then you are quite right. And during those years, who forces Alberta to cease and desist or follow the track desired by the federal government. Well, no one actually. And isn’t this the modus operandi of the federal government? To force the province to react to its pronouncements which may or may not be constitutional? To be conformed to their legislation while the courts sort it out? This is not illegal or immoral. This is the way the system works, and it is a pretty good system..By way of example, Bill C-69 has been found to be unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Appeals and it will be another year before the case is heard by the Supreme Court..But, the bill received Royal Assent in June of 2019 so that will be almost five years of following a potentially unconstitutional law. If the appeal is upheld in the Supreme Court, then it will be another year or two before a new bill is developed. Why didn’t Alberta just say no to the legislation as it impacts Alberta and force the federal government to sue the province?.In this case the provincial rather than the federal government would have enjoyed the last four years awaiting a Supreme Court decision..Surely it makes good sense for the province to be proactive and use the federal government's own lawfare strategy? The residents of Quebec seem to appreciate this strategy. Why wouldn’t we in Alberta?.I am pleased our government is finally thinking strategically. As I understand it, the Alberta Sovereignty Act moves the advantage to Alberta..I like that.
