Overview: many people with knowledge of constitutional law, including law professors, have raised concerns that the ASA will be unconstitutional. My hope is that Ms Smith's overview will take a thoughtful look at those criticisms and join the growing number opposed to it.
2/10
What is the ASA?
A proposed law that would usurp the role of the independent judiciary and undermine rule of law, which is fundamental to democracy.
3/10
Is the ASA about separation from Canada?
No. It is about separation from reality. The entire objective of the ASA is to ignore the separate and independent role of the judiciary and to try to unconstitutionally exercise its powers.
4/ 10
How would the ASA work?
Politicians would seek to bypass courts whenever they decide that it would be politically advantageous to do so. They would gussy their unconstitutional actions up in a "special motion" to make it look official.
5/10
What examples of federal laws will be targeted by the ASA?
I say, what if there were no hypothetical questions?
But let's consider the wonky examples in turn:
6/10
Mandatory vaccination for in-person schooling:
AFAIK, neither the federal government nor any province has mentioned this option. But an attempt to do so could be challenged in court, including a motion for an interlocutory stay of the requirement until a final decision.
6a/10
Federal vaccination policies involving provincial enforcement:
In order for the Contraventions Act to allow use of tickets instead of relying solely on criminal offences, Alberta would need to agree; it has not done so. No ASA is required.
6b/10
Use of Emergencies Act to freeze accounts.
Not convinced that financial service providers would want to risk being prosecuted federally, regardless of the ASA. Ms Smith asserts the measure violates the Charter, but this has not been shown.
6c/10
Authorizing projects awaiting federal Impact Assessment Act approval:
Not convinced that project proponents would want to risk being prosecuted federally, regardless of the ASA. Not sure how this would work for projects that extend beyond Alberta's borders.
6d/10
Mandatory cuts to fertilizer use.
Not what is being proposed, but noting that it is now settled law that regulating GHG emissions can fall under federal jurisdiction, so the claims of a s. 95 violation are wrong.
6e/10
Mandatory emissions/production cuts to energy companies.
Noting that it is now settled law that regulating GHG emissions can fall under federal jurisdiction, so the claims of a s. 92A violation are wrong.
6f/10
Mandatory cuts to electricity generation and use from fossil fuels as recently announced.
Regulating GHG emissions can fall under federal jurisdiction, so claims of s. 92A/Charter violations are wrong. No one is speaking of cutting electricity generation generally.
6g/10
Provincial takeover of firearms licensing.
It is settled law that there is federal jurisdiction over firearms, including licensing, so claims of s. 92(13) violations are wrong. Not convinced people will want to risk being federally prosecuted by not licensing federally.
6h/10
Federal censorship of Alberta or independent media
Courts can provide a Charter remedy if there is one, including by giving an interlocutory stay until a decision is reached. Broadcasting is federal jurisdiction.
6i/10
Mandatory participation for purposes of federal digital identification program.
Courts can provide a Charter remedy if there is one to this conspiracy theory. Federal support for a digital ID might happen at some point, but most IDs are provincial and voluntary.
6j/10
Will a provincial government be able to refuse enforcement of any federal law they don't like?
No, because the ASA is unconstitutional.
7/10
Is the ASA constitutional?
No. It purports to do what is within the exclusive jurisdiction of an independent judiciary. Courts decide if federal measures are constitutional, and they can stay the operation of those measures until they can issue judgment.
8/10
Would the ASA cause economic chaos?
Yes. People investing large amounts of capital seek to avoid risks, and undermining rule of law creates risk. Instead of investing where two governments are contradicting each other, capital will go to other parts of Canada.
9/10
Would the ASA be able to effectively oppose all federal legislation that Alberta doesn't like?
No. In fact, it won't be able to effectively oppose any federal legislation.
10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Gentle reminder that courts can, among other things, order an interlocutory stay on the application of a law/measure. In other words, a law would not operate until the courts have determined if it is valid. So, @ABDanielleSmith's examples are wrong.
Under option 2, the Province, after filing its initial court application challenging the federal law/measure, could file a motion for the interlocutory stay. This would be heard and decided very quickly (usually within a few weeks of the initial court application).
2/
Courts do not, of course, automatically grant stays; they decide based on how well the facts meet the legal test for one. But this example creates a compellng case for a stay being granted as, in the absence of one, the litigation would become moot before it is decided.
3/
It does. It isn’t materially different than the CPP in terms of premiums and benefits. Of course, the CDP will make some investments motivated by political concerns, not financial returns, unlike the CPPIB. It’s not sound investing, but hey.
2/
Yes, it wants fewer immigrants and strongly prefers French language skill over other qualities. Means more talent and growth for the Rest of Canada, though.
3/
I have questions. 1. How is this enforced? Will courts strike down laws that aren’t “as simple as possible”? 2. What happens if a law is written in pretty simple language but could be simpler? Do we allow some room for close enough, or does it have to be redone?
3. All federal legislation is bilingual, and also must reflect the bijural nature of our country. What happens if the only way to make the English version simpler makes the French version more complicated (or vice versa)?
4. Finding simpler ways to draft something takes time and effort. Are there exceptions for when legislation must be done urgently, such as many of the COVID-19 emergency measures were? What circumstances would signal the legislation is an exception to the simple rule?
Politics is often about crafting a statement that is technically correct but which allows for misleading impressions to be drawn when those impressions can be politically beneficial. In that light: #cdnpoli#cpcldr
1/12
Dr Lewis’s blog on the Nuremberg principles is notable in that the specific examples cited (two of which dealt with Black and Indigenous people in North America) are good reminders of how we have failed to meet those principles.
2/12
They particularly show how marginalized people have been mistreated medically by governments, particularly if also racialized. Dr Lewis’s specific examples are indisputable, and she absolutely is correct in pointing them out for the horrible wrongs they are.
(🧵) A brief list of circumstances where provincial employees can do what @PremierScottMoe and @jeremycockrill accuse the federal government of not being allowed to do.
Under The Agricultural Operations Act, provincially appointed inspectors may enter any land and into any premises, other than a dwelling house, for the purposes of performing their responsibilities under that Act. canlii.org/en/sk/laws/sta…
2/
Under The Animal Health Act, provincially appointed inspectors may enter any place, premises or conveyance and conduct an inspection for the purposes of the Act (other than a dwelling house). canlii.org/en/sk/laws/sta…
3/
As a nuance to this thread, I would just say that it is unfortunate that the PM is speaking about the business case for a LNG facility on the east coast at all. It should be up to the private sector proponent(s) for such a project to make a business case (to their backers).
The federal government can, and perhaps should, say whether or not it would financially support an LNG facility on the east coast. But the default should always be against subsidies. If there is a compelling reason for one in this case, I haven't seen it. Plus:
2/6
There are likely reasons why there are very few LNG proposals, especially on our east coast. First, it would depend on expectations for what natural gas prices will be in Europe relative to North America over many years. Do you know what demand and supply will be in 2040?