Alberta Election Tuesday April 16 2019

352 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

pookie wrote:

The whole point of division of powers is that the court doesn't get into what is "reasonable".  This is not the Charter. Whether a power is exercised for good or ill has nothing to do with whether the law authorizing it is within a government's jurisdiction.

Short of overturning the paramountcy doctrine, which the courts are not going to do, the feds win this one in a walk.

I would love to see your legal brief on this issue. To dismiss it as a cake walk must mean you have read some of the precedents that the feds will rely on, so post some cites for us legal buffs. Here is what the BC government thinks about your argument. Of course the BC Supreme Court is a lower court and its ruling is not binding however it seems that their are live issues to be determined.

At the core is the question of whether Canada is a Confederation of equals who have self determination or can the federal collective put a provinces economy and soul at risk in the "national interest." I am sure that not only the people of BC but also the people of Quebec and other provinces are worried about the outcome, especially in a country like Canada where its central government institutions have been captured by corporations whose advise is followed no matter what the politicians who were elected promised on the campaign trail.

The courts have repeatedly affirmed that provinces may make laws and regulations within their legal authority, even in areas of shared authority that overlap with areas federal responsibility.  In the 2016 case of Coastal First Nations v. British Columbia, the B.C. Supreme Court affirmed the ability of provinces to regulate impacts of projects, even if they are federal undertakings, writing:

“To disallow any provincial regulation over the project because it engages a federal undertaking would significantly limit the province’s ability to protect social, cultural and economic interests in its lands and waters. It would go against the current trend in the jurisprudence favouring, where possible, co-operative federalism.”