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
Another drafting error in 4(1) which states that there has to be a Minister responsible for an enactment. The Henry VIII powers do not apply to new laws. If there is an election, new laws cannot be passed ergo Cabinet can repeal the Spring election to "prevent harm"
The Constitutional life of a Legislature is 5 years not 4 so the repeal of a fixed election is entirely constitutional. I don't think the gov realizes how many loopholes there are in the Sovereignty Act.
Especially with no limitation on which acts can be unilaterally changed.
At the very minimum the bill should specify which acts are subject to or protected from the application of the Henry VIII clauses so not all Acts can be changed without the Assembly.
Even better: remove all Henry VIII clauses and simply introduce new bills as needed.
If the government had to introduce specific legislation to address perceived harm by a federal initiative, the constitutionality would likely be more open to challenge.
The Sovereign Act as written is a shell that leaves more constitutionally problematic matters to the Orders
Another way of saying it: the Alberta Legislature, like any province, presently has the power to pass unconstitutional laws. The Sovereignty Act transfers that power to Cabinet. Challenging the individual orders is a form of judicial wack a mole where the act itself is intact
If for some reason Cabinet views amendments to the Bee Act is necessary to protect Albertans from federal harm, it could make a series of changes at a rapid pace that would have the immediate force of law compared to the Assembly.
What type of Bee laws may cause harm to Albertans? The Alberta Legislature said that you need the written permission of EITHER the provincial Apiculturist or an official from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
A sovereign / united Alberta needs exclusive jurisdiction re Bee?
To protect Albertans against harm from the international importation of Bees, a Minister has motion to say "the federal initiative re Bees causes harm" (despite it being constitutional). Assembly votes yes. Now Cabinet has protected Albertans against federally regulated bees? No
Rather than the Assembly quickly passing a new act to remove references to Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the Bee Act (they cause harm), now Cabinet has the power to do the exact same thing except no one will know until after the order is made. Duplicative and Efficient.
So now Cabinet holds a special meeting to use its new powers to address the harm from federally regulated bees. Cabinet is satisfied it is in the public interest issue an order to direct the Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation to amend the Bee Act to remove the CFIA
But lets say during the same Cabinet meeting, this really doesn't fully address the mandate of the Assembly to protect Albertans from harm caused by federally regulated bees.
So they classify federally regulated bees as "problem bees" to have them and persons quarantined
But under the Canadian Constitution these bees are lawfully being brought into the country at a federal port of entry, Cabinet says "Albertans need to be protected from federally regulated bees" they order Sheriffs to set up bee checkpoints right outside ports of entry
The federal importation of bees causes harm to Albertans but is constitutional. So the feds challenge this in Court but since the Sovereignty Act itself doesn't really do anything so the federal government is challenging the Bee protection order.
Since the substance of the Sovereignty Act isn't being challenged, only the Order to direct a Minister to amend an Act and direct officials to do things, the Assembly passes a new motion stating references to fed law in the Animal Health Act causes harm and the cycle starts anew
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
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
Scenarios👑:
1)LG independently refusing to grant Royal Assent
2)Reserving a bill for Assent by the GG either on federal instruction or independently. GG has 1 year to proclaim the bill into law (likely fed Minister of Justice advising) 3) Disallowance by federal decree #abpoli
Disallowance is declaring inoperative a law that is currently in force whereas reservation holds that a law is inoperative unless assented to by the GG
Fed Cabinet has 1 year to disallow. It takes effect when the LG issues a proclamation or by message to the Assembly
The Constitution Act, 1867 is somewhat confusing when it comes to the written texts of the powers. They are found under s.90. This is a catch all section that makes changes to apply the provisions relating to the GG to provincial constitutions with a 2 year window becoming 1.
The New Brunswick Minister of Health tabled significant changes to the Public Health Act today.
These may appear minor but they provide legislative adjustments so New Brunswick no longer has to resort to using a State of Emergency in a subsequent wave of COVID. #nbpoli#cdnlaw
At first glance, these amendments address several concerns I identified with the current Public Health Act: unclear roles, unclear class orders, allowing closure of premises related to notifiable diseases, increasing fines.
In any legislation there will always be room for improvement. Let me be clear at first glance full credit to Public Health and the Office of the Attorney General.
Bill 104 provides a proper legal framework for New Brunswick to respond to pandemics.