In 1918, after NB Minister of Health ordered the closure of places of worship to limit the spread of the Spanish Flu, the Baptist Churches in Westmorland endorsed him for safeguarding public health and stated that the order was "no interference" in the exercise of worship #nbpoli
Minister Roberts thanking them for their view stating it is the correct one to take respecting "the health & lives of the people".
He regretted that some churches did not share this opinion but is pleased there are some who will stand up and take the part to do what is right
The pandemic of 1918 was incredibly hard on people. Here Minister Roberts issues a reminder that no public funerals were to occur to in order to lessen "the ill results from Influenza". Roberts received many correspondence asking for exemptions.
In 1920, St Joseph's Rectory viewed that the several places of ill repute were the source of the outbreak not the only church in Minto. Clearly frustrated, they asked that prior to closing places of worship first that the Minister close places of "public vice" & blamed foreigners
The actual order issued by the Minister of Health shutting down NB in 1918
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Federal Court Decision regarding prorogation is out.
The Court dismissed the application; however, the Court ruled they have jurisdiction to possibly review the constitutionality of a PM advising prorogation in the future.
I expect an appeal by Government #cdnlaw #cdnpoli
I would expect the government to appeal the aspect that the advice of the Prime Minister to the Governor General regarding prorogation is reviewable by the Courts. The implications are significant, especially in provinces like New Brunswick or Ontario that have annual prorogation
The idea that a province like NB may have to respond to litigation anytime there is prorogation is inherently silly. In Ontario there is a written constitutional requirement for annual prorogation. In New Brunswick, it is done so by convention so there is a discretionary element.
Legal retroactivity although allowed in most circumstances starts to violate the rule of law because you are changing the law for actions in the past. There is a presumption that law operates on a go forward basis.
I don't see why Cabinet would send a reference question to the Courts whether the Judicial or Executive Branches can fix a situation where there is no law. That is clearly for the Legislature.
The Courts do not have inherent jurisdiction to correct the absence of a law
A big error: 4(1)(a)(i) gives Cabinet the power to amend or suspend any law (act or reg) without the Assembly if it deems it in the public interest to prevent harm to Albertans
Cabinet can repeal the fixed elections law or amend the sovereignty act, if it is necessary #abpoli
Recall that it is a Minister who introduces an authorizing motion before the Assembly. The motion can simply say "that Cabinet protect Albertans against all harm that may occur from any federal initiative"
There is no legal requirement for a free vote. It could be whipped
Specifically any directive by Cabinet to direct a Minister to change a law is only public AFTER the fact (within 30 days).
However, this is separate from the Minister actually changing the law.
Public scrutiny of any drafting errors will only occur AFTER the law is in force.
Basically, if the Soveriegnty Act accidentally contains errors which give Cabinet nearly unlimited power, doesn't this highlight the importance of the Legislature to slow things down, to avoid flaws occuring via Cabinet decree?
There are presently no limits to which acts Cabinet can suspend or amend without the Assembly. If Cabinet concludes it is in the public interest to prevent harm due to a federal initiative, they could amend the Sovereignty Act to remove any limitations on powers #abpoli
Notwithstanding the obvious constitutional issues surrounding federalism, the act as presently drafted can allow a cabinet to amend the Sovereignty Act itself to give itself even more powers which is quite a loophole.
At the basic minimum there should be an amendment to state there are certain acts that cannot be touched by the sovereignty act.
Further I don't understand why cabinet needs emergency powers to amend the Bee Act without the approval of the Legislature.
The last time a Lieutenant Governor unilaterally vetoed a bill occurred on April 19 1945 in PEI.
This was over a bill to allow physicians to prescribe a 6 month supply of alcohol. The @PEIGuardian reported LG Lepage was lobbied by Temperance Federation #peipoli#cdnpoli
PEI LG LePage stated to the Temperance Federation a few days prior to his witholding of Assent to that he was a staunch prohibitionist all his life and was concerned about the bill. He refused to state whether he would veto the bill.
Conveniently the group had a legal opinion!
The logic of the federation was that since the bill to relax prohibited laws was not approved by the people (referendum?) they were calling on the LG to veto the bill as a matter of fairness #peipoli