Alright -- last one from me on this SK/ECCC water incident. @CTVNews reached out. I told them the weekend amendment to the Trespass to Property Regs -- which now define "persons" as "the Crown in right of Canada" -- was meaningless pandering: regina.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=2… 1/n #skpoli
From the clip, it appears that CTV reached out to Scott Moe's office for his response re: whether the amendment actually changed anything. To which they responded as follows: 2/n
[excuse me for a moment] 3/n
Section 17 of the Trespass to Property Act sets out who is exempt. That list is pretty clear -- and it doesn't include the kind of inspection/testing that set this whole fiasco in motion. Even if it did, Moe's weekend amendment makes no relevant change to that section! 4/n
Indeed, as my colleague @BankesNigel pointed out to me, while unnecessary the amendment actually helps the feds b/c it makes abundantly clear that a "person...acting under a right or authority conferred by law" includes "the Crown in right of Canada," i.e. federal inspectors. 5/n
[excuse me for one more moment] 6/n
What to make of all of this? 1st, the golden rule: haste makes waste. 2nd, @PremierScottMoe & his crew are either painfully incompetent or recklessly cynical (& don't think very highly of their constituents). None of this is good for the fine people of the province I grew up in.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. There are 3 potential kinds of actions in "tort law" that are most often considered in this context: negligence, public nuisance & private nuisance. To my mind, public nuisance is the most intuitive tort here, but I note the reference to a "class action" in the story... 2/n
... which brings to mind a potential class action in private nuisance. Those who followed the Freedom Convoy shd be familiar w/ the potential effectiveness of that approach (where rep. plaintiff succeeded in getting an injunction, trial pending) (see ablawg.ca/2022/02/09/rig…). 3/n
We hear a lot lately in #cdnpoli about so-called “gatekeepers” (aka regulatory bodies & agencies), usually w/ a thinly veiled accusation that they deliberately — gleefully even — stand b/w us and freedom & prosperity. With few exceptions, however, the opposite is true… 1/4
I’ve brought this up b4. #mtpolley, #lacmegantic, & many others — clear examples of insufficient regulatory oversight. But now smarter persons than me have explained how a robust admin state is actually a safeguard against — wait for it — local elites: volts.wtf/p/volts-podcas… 2/4
Which, if you stop to think about it for 5 seconds, shld be obvious. It’s like the climate change conspiracy re: academics/scientists — observe just one faculty or departmental meeting to see how laughable that is. The same is true of any bureaucracy: it’s too vast & diverse. 3/4
The ABCA opinion in the IAA Reference is out: albertacourts.ca/ca/publication…. As expected, a 4:1 majority says that the Act is unconstitutional. I have a lot of paras to read, but I'll eave y'all w/ this one. It doesn't require a law degree to understand, b/c it's not legal reasoning:🤷♂️
OK, here's the doctrinal DL:
1) A *lot* of this opinion hinges on the hypothetical of an otherwise "provincial project" (which isn't a thing, actually) not requiring any other federal permits but still being subject to the IAA. To the best of my knowledge, there is not... 1/n
...a single project on the registry like this. I find it hard to believe the feds would ever require a full IA of such a project, but in any event, if that is the main concern, esy enough to sever that element. ABCA did not, and this brings us to the core of their concern... 2/n