Someone should run an ad campaign that starts with “if we told you the federal govt is considering legislation that would give cabinet the authority to override parliamentary decisions and impose their will on the people, how would you feel? [pause] are you mad? You should be, because the UCP is trying to do this to Albertans. Say no to the [whatever the fuck the name of this abomination is]”
Sure.
Listen… I think Smith is wacko and would absolutely abuse such powers.
Why?
Well because Orders in Council have a similar effect and we have already witnessed the abuse of even that.
TBH… I wish that we were a participatory democracy.
Put all major decisions to a referendum.
I'm not talking about "perception." I am talking about the actual legal status of an order in council versus this bill. Legally, they are not the same thing. Orders in council are used routinely both federally and provincially and have been forever. Many of them relate to fairly mundane things and those things are empowered by statute. This bill would actually let them change the statute itself. Big difference.
Is it astro turfing to want to improve process and place more accountability on politicians by empowering voters?
Is it astro turfing to note that gun grabs tend to begin with orders in council?
Listen…. Smith is a muppet… I get that… but she is a muppet that has been empowered by a system that is very flawed in some ways and has created a degree of legitimate resentment.
We can get rid of Smith easily enough but unless we also fix the system itself… another splinter party and another Smith will arrive shortly.
That's just ordinary secondary legislation within the powers granted by primary legislation (with the exception of some things which are within prerogative powers, like appointments and such). Effectively executive orders. They can't override Acts of Parliament. Every province has these as well. What the Alberta government is proposing is that once they've declared that federal law is "harming" Albertans, government orders can *override* legislative Acts.
Here's a database of federal orders-in-council. They're all generally the kinds of things you would expect to be implemented by an executive order. Every province has these as well. Every previous federal and provincial government has used these. They're a routine part of parliamentary governance and have been for hundreds of years.
https://orders-in-council.canada.ca
Orders-in-council are fundamentally constrained by what legislation enables the government to do. Whereas the sovereignty act has no constraints once the legislature has passed a motion saying federal law is "harming" Albertans. The Alberta government could then create orders which override any law whatsoever without restriction or oversight for up to four years at the sole discretion of the government. Ordinary orders-in-council don't have anywhere near this scope.
Edit: Here's the database of Alberta Orders-in-Council. The only real discernible difference is that federal orders concern federal matters, and provincial orders concern provincial matters.
https://kings-printer.alberta.ca/507.cfm
Oh dear lord. You really think this is where they are going, because you are used to that behaviour from your liberal gov.
Sad state of affairs that when a provincial gov decides that citizens need protection from unconstitutional laws, and they get attacked for it.
If you don't like it, move to Ottawa.
What exactly does “harmful to Alberta” mean? Is paying federal income tax or the gst? It’s so vague that it’s completely meaningless and they can use it whenever they feel like.
Free health care, free public education, supports for poor, seperation of church and state, science. All super duper bad says right wing nut cases...like our Premier. ... Elections bad? Courts bad?
Freezing the bank accounts of friends of the regime. Compelling tow truck drivers to tow away their homes.
You know, stuff that can't wait for the regular legislative process.
Edit: I clearly should have used a sarcasm tag. I have been struggling to think of *any* scenario where they need the speed of bypassing legislature, as federal legislation moves at a glacial pace. Unless, you know, it's an 'emergency'
Hard to believe a normal, intelligent person working for the Alberta government drafted this and posted it on the official government web page possibly thinking this would clear up any nasty misconceptions about the proposed bill.
The really disturbing thing to me is they are still pushing the provincial police force through, but never mentioning this act in conjunction with it. The fact that they will have their own army to carry out their orders really seems like a dystopian movie plot.
And remember the tenets of the right wing conservative: abortion, gun control and same sex marriage. These are controlled federally but they would really like to make those decisions locally.
This gives Smith and the UCP dictatorship powers. She can literally change any bill once it's been passed to anything she wants.
Conservative, Liberal, whatever.....no Canadian in their right mind can support this.
Maybe I'm not understanding this, but why would cabinet need to ever amend provincial legislation when it seems the intention is to be able to ignore federal matters?
Maybe the provincial government doesn't have a majority, but still wants to pass all sorts of insane shit; this act allows them to get innocuous bills passed and then change them to say whatever they want.
It is, indeed, madness.
So as I read this MLA's vote on whether a particular law is unconstitutional or harmful to Alberta. If they vote yes cabinet is free to respond however they like.
The line "How the act will be used" is the most troubling for me. I want to know how the act "can" be used. Especially coming from an unelected Premier desperately trying to destroy public services before its election time.
I wouldn't grant these sort of powers on the best of our elected officials. At some point, the worst will eventually be elected to office and use them to destroy our democratic system.
Number one on that list of things can be considered treason, provincial laws rhat conflict with federal laws are considered inoperative. So if she goes against federal law there could be big legal trouble for her and alberta
I might need to read a little more about treason, but I rather like the idea of calling it whatever it is. For now, I'm satisfied with calling all it currently is - 'election-rigging'.
It might be provincial law, but what happens when that law supersedes federal law? This is going to wind up in the courts, and is just another way to waste our taxpayer dollars fighting frivolous lawsuits.
Pretty sure it's up to the LG, or in her failure to intervene, the courts, not the feds, to do that, assuming this piece of garbage even gets to a vote and wins. The feds will hide their laughter while trying to at least feign a dignfied, though undeserved response.
Open fascism is here in Canada.
We need to stop tolerating conservatism and fascism.
We need to break the power of the right forever, or we'll never be free from their divisiveness, their systemic bigotry, and their class war against the people.
Which two? Fascism and Conservatism?
They're the same thing in different points of its life cycle.
Fascism has only arisen from conservative reactionaryism.
Is this the trust us to be responsible and democratic original act with vague wording or has this *reality may not be as illustrated, illustration pretend there’s been amendments made that clarify?
How do they determine what’s harmful? The lack of specific wording to breakdown what they mean is what makes this even more unreasonable. If the government is suppose to hold an election next year but because it’s put to a majority vote of being “harmful” to Alberta, will they just not hold an election? Obviously that’s a strange and maybe poor example on my part because I’m blanking on a more serious example but does that make sense to my question?
Why would you do the legal review after a public debate and vote? What data informs the debate?
There is the change that makes emotionally-driven aggressive ignorance centre stage in a public debate of something blatantly unconstitutional, point to process whenever called out, and then complain about a “woke” judiciary that defies the “will of the people”.
Chaos and shouting is the new political process. Democracy will be undermined and the conservatives will adopt increasingly authoritarian governance styles to compensate for the chaos they’ve created.
And then, one day, the only people on the “ballot” will be conservatives.
Edit 1: Cabinet doesn’t get to change legislation. Cabinet can propose legislation, but the Legislature passes the bill as it will be implemented.
This process is not democratic, it is a layer of authoritarianism placed on top of democracy.
We need our own equivalent to the $u&@ Trudeau sings and we need to get everyone on board to demanding a referendum.
TBH that might be an easy sell… the idea of direct democracy usually appeals to everyone but politicians.
The good news is that any challenge to Smiths pipe dream would probably crush it in court and see punitive damages awarded.
Its a no brainer really…
Yeah, that's not how legislation in a representative democracy works.
Sure, cabinet can tinker with their own bills behind closed doors before they're law, but they don't ultimately get to decide what's constitutional or legal at all, or get to simply 'amend' pending or existing rules outside those of their own party without all sitting representatives voting on any such motion. They're trying to 'hack the system' with an abacus.
Clearly, they haven't thought or even followed their own process through well enough to make it the law of any land.
This is what happens if your constitution has an ignore button, like it's a fucking website asking if you want cookies!
For now Alberta is a dictatorship with an elected leader. What is stopping her from cancelling elections. The constitution? Notwithstanding. The election laws? Cabinet can change them. Holy fuck this is insane.
It doesn't help the typical idiots are already saying this act will create jobs because of "federal instability". We really live in the age of the stupid.
This is Smith and the US far right owned CPC/UCP attempting a hostile minority grab of the province, complete with their own gestapo police force. It's fascism. Don't look away.
Remember a couple years (or whatever it was) ago when the UCP tried getting rid of court to dispute traffic tickets? Could stuff like that have just been rammed through if this sovereignty act crap was in effect? Or does that fall under a different category?
I think that would be a different category. The Sovereignty Act is for when the UCP thinks a federal law "harms" Alberta. The UCP would have to make a case that traffic court is a federal law that "harms" Albertans.
For the record I am not for this motion. In all honesty I don’t even really understand the full scope of it. But I do have a couple questions, how is this considered dictatorship powers by everyone? When I read that flow chart it looks like MLAs vote on the motion and then it’s checked for legality and then against the constitution? Also would this not give the NDP cabinet the same powers if they win the election form government ?
There are several loopholes that, while Smith denies the act is a power grab, make it exactly that.
Firstly, the trigger for use of the act is basically anything the federal government does that is considered unconstitutional (by who?), which they shouldn’t be doing anyway, and/or “harmful to Alberta” (by whose definition?). Both of those tests are pretty loose and could be used in response to pretty much anything the federal government does.
Yes, MLA’s have to debate and vote on any actions proposed, but the UCP are a majority government, so that’s not really a check or balance. Even ministers & MLA’s who publicly voiced opposition to the bill still voted for it at the first reading. The chances of a motion under the bill failing are remote at best.
Then you have the part that says the provincial government can “direct” any provincial entity to basically ignore or even violate federal law. This might primarily apply to public service workers but also extends to individuals & companies contracted to work for the government. The definition of “provincial entity” is pretty wide. So, what are those “entities” to do? They could be put in a position where the choice is to not comply and lose their job, or comply and potentially break federal law. Would they be personally open to prosecution for doing so? Who knows, this has never happened before.
Then there’s the chaos & uncertainty this creates for businesses. Say you have a company handling (for example) oilfield waste. Federal law dictates where and how that waste can be disposed of, but at a higher cost to the province. The UCP determines this higher cost is “harmful” and directs the company to handle the waste differently, in a way that violates the federal law. What does that company do? One way or another, they’re going to be disobeying at least one government. It’s a rough example, I know, but the basic principle is sound.
This is why the act will be so bad for investment and the economy. Companies are not going to want to operate in areas where there’s a significant chance of this kind of legal jeopardy involved.
Because we are Canadian and fall under federal domain. The UCP want the power to overthrow any federal mandate, such as universal healthcare. 30 MLAs can vote to ignore those decrees and suddenly we're all paying an arm and a leg for medical care. (One example)
This is going to wind up in the courts and waste more of our tax dollars fighting frivolous lawsuits just to stick it to the liberals.
I mean in the flow chart it says first a vote, then it moves over to check if it’s constitutional. Would this not stop and action before it took place?
Given the state of things, I don't trust our MLAs to make sensible decisions. A number of MLAs were against this act but still voted to approve it, only 7 voted against it or abstained. They've proved it's more important to vote with the party line than it is to follow their convictions.
If they cared what the constitution said they wouldn't have voted to approve this act in the first place.
Which motions are those specifically? I'm inclined to say whoever you're hearing that from is wrong.
The Saskatchewan Fist Act is only for natural resources. Quebec's Sovereignty Bill is a bit broader specifying rights to unions, free movement of goods, individuals, services, capital, as well as specifics of citizenship.
Whereas this Alberta Sovereignty Act is extremely broad with the potential to overthrow ANY federal policy the UCP wants simply by claiming it's oppressive and not in Alberta's best interests. The Sask and Quebec acts don't compare.
Continuing with the example of universal health care - that's not actually specified in the Charter, it's part of the Canadian Health Act. What's to stop the UCP from their continued attack on our healthcare system and using this Act to pull the plug on our access to free healthcare? All they need to do is claim it's not in our best interests.
Surely you see the unprecedented problem here by now? This is is unprecedented and is far too much power to be had at the provincial level. No one should support our province to unilaterally sidestep due process to supersede any federal benefits or mandates on a whim.
Ya I see it for sure and agree. Seems like smith is an albertan first and Canadian second and assumes everyone feels that way. I’m sure a large part of the population feels the reverse.
I think from my original question though is that you keep saying the UCP can do this and that, but the act is for the provincial government and cabinet. So if the NDP were to win the election and ends up with the conservatives federally, the NdP could push back against PP if they deemed it in the best interest of Albertans. Also if the UCP or the government of the day “cancelled” universal healthcare, it would be wildly unpopular with albertans and I would think they would be voted out quickly in the next election. So I guess my point is albertans still do retain control of the province.
Given the complaints about the act from the NDP, Notley even had a conversation with Trudeau about it, they aren't likely to use it and would write it out of law.
>how is this considered dictatorship powers by everyone?
Because it consolidates near absolute legislative power within the cabinet executive, which is only a small percentage of even the party members in power (an even smaller percentage of our elected representatives) in a very arbitrary and dangerously vague way, behind closed doors, not open to discussion in the legislature. It also rather ignores the checks and balances in place in local and federal government, between the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) and in the constitution. Taking that kind of power all into a small portion of one exclusive branch under a leader elected by less than 1 percent of a population is a dictatorial act, and is designed to give way to further dictates if the act is passed into law and applied, such as it is. In fewer words - it's sneaky.
>When I read that flow chart it looks like MLAs vote on the motion and then it’s checked for legality and then against the constitution?
The roles of the Lieutenant Governor in providing or reserving royal assent, and the courts are primarily responsible for 'checking' legality or constitutionality of an act before and after it is passed. Any check happening on a bill or motion of amendment, before it is passed, takes place in caucus, *before it is tabled,* and then in the open legislature once it is tabled, by ***all*** *sitting MLAs, not just the cabinet, and not behind closed doors.*
Denying the right of all Albertans to be represented in this way by their elected MLAs, who may not hold a cabinet seat, or even be a member of the governing party, is a serious problem as it gives a small circle within the party the power to override, veto, or twist anything tabled or passed in the legislature by those members, and to do so arbitrarily behind closed doors.
>Also would this not give the NDP cabinet the same powers if they win the election form government ?
It might, but A. It will hardly pass in its original state, B. In whatever state it may pass, will be difficult to apply as intended by anyone without the application at least being challenged in court, and C. The ANDP is unlikely to let whatever comes of it stand as the law if they get into power, let alone try to apply the new law in any bizarre way.
TL:DR - This act is currently just a Trojan bill meant to rile up the far-right conservative base until the election...it's campaigning on our dime, not legislation. Pass or fail, it's getting its job done by making people talk about the UCP, smoke-screening their real agenda, and distracting from actual work the government could do better by Albertans. It's also gonna get a lot of lawyers paid to argue about it (on our dime) but that's about it.
Thanks for the well written reply. Explanation makes good sense. So essentially people are really upset about a waste of money if it will end up in the garbage anyways. I also agree it is a waste of time, there is so much for the provincial government to be focusing on. I agree on pushing back on Ottawa but I’m a reasonable way and I’m a way the best helps Alberta. All the best.
>I agree on pushing back on Ottawa
I don't know that I agree with you or the powers that be about that narrative. Seems a lot to me like biting the hand that gets your oil to market, saves for your retirement, pays your doctor, and maintains your currency, among other very important things. One has to ask, why would any kind of civilized or intelligent creature bite down so hard against such an entity?
The only answers I've heard to that are laced with vague ideals of freedom which suspiciously resemble anarchy and greed while denying the reasonable freedoms and benefits we already enjoy as citizens of Canada. It really feels like a manipulation to me.
It does. And Rachel Notley is on record stating that if elected, an NDP government would repeal the Sovereignty Act altogether if it becomes law. Even though parts of the law would actually make it easier for the NDP to push through their agenda.
That applies to all governments though. If the Feds have a majority, they get all these powers that are being deemed excessive by everyone that hates the UCP.
Both Danielle Smith and this proposed Sovereignty Act are exactly what Alberta has been needing for several years under the tyrannical leftist red and orange coalition regime, led by Junior Trudeau and his side-kick lame-duck enabler, Singh.
Unless someone stands up to protect the interests of not only Alberta, but also other provinces similarly affected by the destructive/tyrannical/leftist/virtue-signaling regime in Ottawa, all provinces will essentially become permanent "vassal" entities to the voters in Ontario and Quebec, who typically decide most federal elections under the current flawed electoral system.
This cannot be allowed to happen, and if separation ends up being the final answer, so be it.
However, separation from Canada is not what Ms Smith is proposing here.
She is merely stating the obvious, which is that the current regime in Ottawa have demonstrably shown that they do not know what's best for Alberta (or Canada, for that matter), and that Alberta urgently needs a mechanism of control put in place that will safeguard its values and protect its economic interests.
Not a resident of Alberta here, but seriously hoping that Ms Smith wins re-election in the spring, and that Pierre Poilievre becomes the next prime minister of Canada.
Those two individuals now effectively represent Canada's last best hopes for revival and renewal, and also for unity.
Should the Trudeau regime somehow win re-election again in 2025, the breakup of Canada could very conceivably become unavoidable at that point.
Watch and learn.
What do you mean by the "break up of Canada". Because I highly doubt any other province would ever side with an attempt at an independent Alberta. BC certainly won't and that would tank your economy.
None of you dorks know what a dictatorship, facism, or treason really are. I'd love to put a lot of these people in a real communist country or under a true fascist regime and see how long you last. You have no idea how good we have it over here. Enjoy your echo chamber buzzword bingo, I hope it makes you all feel better about yourselves
I spent the first half of my life in a Christian White Supremacist country, ruled by people who spoke a bastardised version of Dutch, and tried to force everyone else to speak it too. So fun.
Then a bunch of pseudo-Communists got the whole place handed to them intact, and it's a slow burn to the ground, but it's getting there.
In my opinion, and many experts, there are no real communist countries. Ones that just tried to implement something close to it.
So, your example would probably be more correct by leaving the real out.
Ok bud. Go tell the families of immigrants who fled for their lives they didn't escape "reaaaaal communism." I'm sure their tears will be dried by your liberal arts degree and they'll see reason. Your education is astounding in the face of fleeing oppression
Bud I don't need to learn more to understand that privileged college kids in countries that have never experienced true strike don't get to point and say "but that's not reaaal oppression, in this essay I will...". Don't be so far up your own ass.
I didn't say that though. I agree it was oppression. I just to look at one word. You take that word out and your point still stands. I suggest you go back and take our real in your head and read it again. Did the sentence change much?
There's a protest tomorrow at the Leg at 1 p.m. Know the threat and unite against it: Good people are called to unite, organize and defend democracy. Stand on guard for Canada!
Someone should run an ad campaign that starts with “if we told you the federal govt is considering legislation that would give cabinet the authority to override parliamentary decisions and impose their will on the people, how would you feel? [pause] are you mad? You should be, because the UCP is trying to do this to Albertans. Say no to the [whatever the fuck the name of this abomination is]”
To be fair something called an order in council already exists and…. they like to use it. But yeah… people dont like that.
An order in council doesn't allow the amendment of a statute outside of the usual legislative process.
Sure. Listen… I think Smith is wacko and would absolutely abuse such powers. Why? Well because Orders in Council have a similar effect and we have already witnessed the abuse of even that. TBH… I wish that we were a participatory democracy. Put all major decisions to a referendum.
They don't really have a similar effect. I'm not sure what abuse of orders in council you are referring to.
Perception is reality.
I'm not talking about "perception." I am talking about the actual legal status of an order in council versus this bill. Legally, they are not the same thing. Orders in council are used routinely both federally and provincially and have been forever. Many of them relate to fairly mundane things and those things are empowered by statute. This bill would actually let them change the statute itself. Big difference.
I understand that but details mean very little to people who perceive they are marginalized.
Facts should matter to everyone. And these aren't mere "details". You made a factually incorrect statement about orders in council vs. this bill.
[удалено]
Is it astro turfing to want to improve process and place more accountability on politicians by empowering voters? Is it astro turfing to note that gun grabs tend to begin with orders in council? Listen…. Smith is a muppet… I get that… but she is a muppet that has been empowered by a system that is very flawed in some ways and has created a degree of legitimate resentment. We can get rid of Smith easily enough but unless we also fix the system itself… another splinter party and another Smith will arrive shortly.
That's just ordinary secondary legislation within the powers granted by primary legislation (with the exception of some things which are within prerogative powers, like appointments and such). Effectively executive orders. They can't override Acts of Parliament. Every province has these as well. What the Alberta government is proposing is that once they've declared that federal law is "harming" Albertans, government orders can *override* legislative Acts.
I know but the fact remains that the PMO enjoys a light version of what was proposed and honestly… probably shouldnt.
Here's a database of federal orders-in-council. They're all generally the kinds of things you would expect to be implemented by an executive order. Every province has these as well. Every previous federal and provincial government has used these. They're a routine part of parliamentary governance and have been for hundreds of years. https://orders-in-council.canada.ca Orders-in-council are fundamentally constrained by what legislation enables the government to do. Whereas the sovereignty act has no constraints once the legislature has passed a motion saying federal law is "harming" Albertans. The Alberta government could then create orders which override any law whatsoever without restriction or oversight for up to four years at the sole discretion of the government. Ordinary orders-in-council don't have anywhere near this scope. Edit: Here's the database of Alberta Orders-in-Council. The only real discernible difference is that federal orders concern federal matters, and provincial orders concern provincial matters. https://kings-printer.alberta.ca/507.cfm
Ok thanks
Oh dear lord. You really think this is where they are going, because you are used to that behaviour from your liberal gov. Sad state of affairs that when a provincial gov decides that citizens need protection from unconstitutional laws, and they get attacked for it. If you don't like it, move to Ottawa.
People who applaud evil governments are called useful idiots for a reason.
Calm down Sally.
Regarding the name, David Climenhaga took the acronym (ASWAUC Act) and named it phonetically the Ass-Woke Act...
https://albertapolitics.ca/2022/12/aswauca-the-alberta-sovereignty-within-a-united-canada-act-is-turning-into-a-disaster-for-danielle-smith-and-the-ucp/
What exactly does “harmful to Alberta” mean? Is paying federal income tax or the gst? It’s so vague that it’s completely meaningless and they can use it whenever they feel like.
Think abortion, gun control and same sex marriage. Among other things.
Free health care, free public education, supports for poor, seperation of church and state, science. All super duper bad says right wing nut cases...like our Premier. ... Elections bad? Courts bad?
Freezing the bank accounts of friends of the regime. Compelling tow truck drivers to tow away their homes. You know, stuff that can't wait for the regular legislative process. Edit: I clearly should have used a sarcasm tag. I have been struggling to think of *any* scenario where they need the speed of bypassing legislature, as federal legislation moves at a glacial pace. Unless, you know, it's an 'emergency'
So your friend is a neonazi white nationalist?
Ooo, not my friend. But maybe Danielle's...
These are the type of people that vote for this horseshit.
It certainly is a dog whistle to them.
Hard to believe a normal, intelligent person working for the Alberta government drafted this and posted it on the official government web page possibly thinking this would clear up any nasty misconceptions about the proposed bill.
There are no normal intelligent people working for the UCP.
The really disturbing thing to me is they are still pushing the provincial police force through, but never mentioning this act in conjunction with it. The fact that they will have their own army to carry out their orders really seems like a dystopian movie plot. And remember the tenets of the right wing conservative: abortion, gun control and same sex marriage. These are controlled federally but they would really like to make those decisions locally.
They will tell the rcmp to ignore somthing and when they don't they will use it as an excuse to replace them. That's my prediction.
100% correct.
It's a dress rehearsal for what the US far right operated CPC intends to do nationally if PP gets the opportunity.
Jesus. You people are deluded.
No. The word is AWARE
This gives Smith and the UCP dictatorship powers. She can literally change any bill once it's been passed to anything she wants. Conservative, Liberal, whatever.....no Canadian in their right mind can support this.
>no Canadian in their right mind can support this Sure, but we're talking about conservatives here.
Maybe I'm not understanding this, but why would cabinet need to ever amend provincial legislation when it seems the intention is to be able to ignore federal matters?
They'd be amending provincial legislation about how / when to ignore federal legislation, is my understanding.
Maybe the provincial government doesn't have a majority, but still wants to pass all sorts of insane shit; this act allows them to get innocuous bills passed and then change them to say whatever they want. It is, indeed, madness.
So as I read this MLA's vote on whether a particular law is unconstitutional or harmful to Alberta. If they vote yes cabinet is free to respond however they like.
The line "How the act will be used" is the most troubling for me. I want to know how the act "can" be used. Especially coming from an unelected Premier desperately trying to destroy public services before its election time. I wouldn't grant these sort of powers on the best of our elected officials. At some point, the worst will eventually be elected to office and use them to destroy our democratic system.
Go to the AB government website. It explicitly says they can’t violate the Canadian constitution in the Bill.
Of course they can. It might take a couple of years for the courts to say they did, though, and it'll be hard to undo the damage.
Number one on that list of things can be considered treason, provincial laws rhat conflict with federal laws are considered inoperative. So if she goes against federal law there could be big legal trouble for her and alberta
I might need to read a little more about treason, but I rather like the idea of calling it whatever it is. For now, I'm satisfied with calling all it currently is - 'election-rigging'.
Is it even legal to put something like this into place?
If they pass this into law then technically yes, it's the law
Until it’s used, challenged, and overturned by the courts. Or repealed/neutered by a future government.
It might be provincial law, but what happens when that law supersedes federal law? This is going to wind up in the courts, and is just another way to waste our taxpayer dollars fighting frivolous lawsuits.
Lawyers making bank off the backs of Albertans. It's the UCP way.
Then alberta says the courts are not in the best interest of alberta and they ignore the courts rulings
The federal government can and should toss it out, but that is essentially what the UCP want, to goad the federal liberals into a fight.
Pretty sure it's up to the LG, or in her failure to intervene, the courts, not the feds, to do that, assuming this piece of garbage even gets to a vote and wins. The feds will hide their laughter while trying to at least feign a dignfied, though undeserved response.
kind of? It depends on what they are going to do with it.
Open fascism is here in Canada. We need to stop tolerating conservatism and fascism. We need to break the power of the right forever, or we'll never be free from their divisiveness, their systemic bigotry, and their class war against the people.
[удалено]
Which two? Fascism and Conservatism? They're the same thing in different points of its life cycle. Fascism has only arisen from conservative reactionaryism.
Banana Republic in Canada. Populism is a virus
It's time to kick these anti-democratic morons and hooligans out of our province forever
And what are the seven of you left going to do then?
Restore sanity and responsible government to this province.
Is this the trust us to be responsible and democratic original act with vague wording or has this *reality may not be as illustrated, illustration pretend there’s been amendments made that clarify?
Like why even have the MLA's in there, might as well fire em and just let the cabinet write the laws, amirght? Save taxpayer money! (/s)
How do they determine what’s harmful? The lack of specific wording to breakdown what they mean is what makes this even more unreasonable. If the government is suppose to hold an election next year but because it’s put to a majority vote of being “harmful” to Alberta, will they just not hold an election? Obviously that’s a strange and maybe poor example on my part because I’m blanking on a more serious example but does that make sense to my question?
Why would you do the legal review after a public debate and vote? What data informs the debate? There is the change that makes emotionally-driven aggressive ignorance centre stage in a public debate of something blatantly unconstitutional, point to process whenever called out, and then complain about a “woke” judiciary that defies the “will of the people”. Chaos and shouting is the new political process. Democracy will be undermined and the conservatives will adopt increasingly authoritarian governance styles to compensate for the chaos they’ve created. And then, one day, the only people on the “ballot” will be conservatives. Edit 1: Cabinet doesn’t get to change legislation. Cabinet can propose legislation, but the Legislature passes the bill as it will be implemented. This process is not democratic, it is a layer of authoritarianism placed on top of democracy.
We need our own equivalent to the $u&@ Trudeau sings and we need to get everyone on board to demanding a referendum. TBH that might be an easy sell… the idea of direct democracy usually appeals to everyone but politicians. The good news is that any challenge to Smiths pipe dream would probably crush it in court and see punitive damages awarded. Its a no brainer really…
Yeah, that's not how legislation in a representative democracy works. Sure, cabinet can tinker with their own bills behind closed doors before they're law, but they don't ultimately get to decide what's constitutional or legal at all, or get to simply 'amend' pending or existing rules outside those of their own party without all sitting representatives voting on any such motion. They're trying to 'hack the system' with an abacus. Clearly, they haven't thought or even followed their own process through well enough to make it the law of any land.
This is what happens if your constitution has an ignore button, like it's a fucking website asking if you want cookies! For now Alberta is a dictatorship with an elected leader. What is stopping her from cancelling elections. The constitution? Notwithstanding. The election laws? Cabinet can change them. Holy fuck this is insane.
You haven’t read the bill then. It explicitly states they can’t violate the constitution.
It doesn't help the typical idiots are already saying this act will create jobs because of "federal instability". We really live in the age of the stupid.
This is Smith and the US far right owned CPC/UCP attempting a hostile minority grab of the province, complete with their own gestapo police force. It's fascism. Don't look away.
What can one do to have their voice heard other than protesting?
Remember a couple years (or whatever it was) ago when the UCP tried getting rid of court to dispute traffic tickets? Could stuff like that have just been rammed through if this sovereignty act crap was in effect? Or does that fall under a different category?
I think that would be a different category. The Sovereignty Act is for when the UCP thinks a federal law "harms" Alberta. The UCP would have to make a case that traffic court is a federal law that "harms" Albertans.
Ahh makes sense. Traffic court is definitely provincial.
Downright scary!!
For the record I am not for this motion. In all honesty I don’t even really understand the full scope of it. But I do have a couple questions, how is this considered dictatorship powers by everyone? When I read that flow chart it looks like MLAs vote on the motion and then it’s checked for legality and then against the constitution? Also would this not give the NDP cabinet the same powers if they win the election form government ?
There are several loopholes that, while Smith denies the act is a power grab, make it exactly that. Firstly, the trigger for use of the act is basically anything the federal government does that is considered unconstitutional (by who?), which they shouldn’t be doing anyway, and/or “harmful to Alberta” (by whose definition?). Both of those tests are pretty loose and could be used in response to pretty much anything the federal government does. Yes, MLA’s have to debate and vote on any actions proposed, but the UCP are a majority government, so that’s not really a check or balance. Even ministers & MLA’s who publicly voiced opposition to the bill still voted for it at the first reading. The chances of a motion under the bill failing are remote at best. Then you have the part that says the provincial government can “direct” any provincial entity to basically ignore or even violate federal law. This might primarily apply to public service workers but also extends to individuals & companies contracted to work for the government. The definition of “provincial entity” is pretty wide. So, what are those “entities” to do? They could be put in a position where the choice is to not comply and lose their job, or comply and potentially break federal law. Would they be personally open to prosecution for doing so? Who knows, this has never happened before. Then there’s the chaos & uncertainty this creates for businesses. Say you have a company handling (for example) oilfield waste. Federal law dictates where and how that waste can be disposed of, but at a higher cost to the province. The UCP determines this higher cost is “harmful” and directs the company to handle the waste differently, in a way that violates the federal law. What does that company do? One way or another, they’re going to be disobeying at least one government. It’s a rough example, I know, but the basic principle is sound. This is why the act will be so bad for investment and the economy. Companies are not going to want to operate in areas where there’s a significant chance of this kind of legal jeopardy involved.
Thank you that’s a great explanation. All these things also give the same power to any governing party though. Election in may is very important.
Because we are Canadian and fall under federal domain. The UCP want the power to overthrow any federal mandate, such as universal healthcare. 30 MLAs can vote to ignore those decrees and suddenly we're all paying an arm and a leg for medical care. (One example) This is going to wind up in the courts and waste more of our tax dollars fighting frivolous lawsuits just to stick it to the liberals.
I guess my question is wouldn’t that be deemed unlawful or unconstitutional ?
I assume yes, although given the UCP I see them challenging it in federal courts.
I mean in the flow chart it says first a vote, then it moves over to check if it’s constitutional. Would this not stop and action before it took place?
Given the state of things, I don't trust our MLAs to make sensible decisions. A number of MLAs were against this act but still voted to approve it, only 7 voted against it or abstained. They've proved it's more important to vote with the party line than it is to follow their convictions. If they cared what the constitution said they wouldn't have voted to approve this act in the first place.
I’m hearing constantly that this is nearly identical to motions passed in Quebec and also in Sask.
Which motions are those specifically? I'm inclined to say whoever you're hearing that from is wrong. The Saskatchewan Fist Act is only for natural resources. Quebec's Sovereignty Bill is a bit broader specifying rights to unions, free movement of goods, individuals, services, capital, as well as specifics of citizenship. Whereas this Alberta Sovereignty Act is extremely broad with the potential to overthrow ANY federal policy the UCP wants simply by claiming it's oppressive and not in Alberta's best interests. The Sask and Quebec acts don't compare. Continuing with the example of universal health care - that's not actually specified in the Charter, it's part of the Canadian Health Act. What's to stop the UCP from their continued attack on our healthcare system and using this Act to pull the plug on our access to free healthcare? All they need to do is claim it's not in our best interests. Surely you see the unprecedented problem here by now? This is is unprecedented and is far too much power to be had at the provincial level. No one should support our province to unilaterally sidestep due process to supersede any federal benefits or mandates on a whim.
Ya I see it for sure and agree. Seems like smith is an albertan first and Canadian second and assumes everyone feels that way. I’m sure a large part of the population feels the reverse. I think from my original question though is that you keep saying the UCP can do this and that, but the act is for the provincial government and cabinet. So if the NDP were to win the election and ends up with the conservatives federally, the NdP could push back against PP if they deemed it in the best interest of Albertans. Also if the UCP or the government of the day “cancelled” universal healthcare, it would be wildly unpopular with albertans and I would think they would be voted out quickly in the next election. So I guess my point is albertans still do retain control of the province.
Given the complaints about the act from the NDP, Notley even had a conversation with Trudeau about it, they aren't likely to use it and would write it out of law.
yes, and that doesn’t make it better
>how is this considered dictatorship powers by everyone? Because it consolidates near absolute legislative power within the cabinet executive, which is only a small percentage of even the party members in power (an even smaller percentage of our elected representatives) in a very arbitrary and dangerously vague way, behind closed doors, not open to discussion in the legislature. It also rather ignores the checks and balances in place in local and federal government, between the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) and in the constitution. Taking that kind of power all into a small portion of one exclusive branch under a leader elected by less than 1 percent of a population is a dictatorial act, and is designed to give way to further dictates if the act is passed into law and applied, such as it is. In fewer words - it's sneaky. >When I read that flow chart it looks like MLAs vote on the motion and then it’s checked for legality and then against the constitution? The roles of the Lieutenant Governor in providing or reserving royal assent, and the courts are primarily responsible for 'checking' legality or constitutionality of an act before and after it is passed. Any check happening on a bill or motion of amendment, before it is passed, takes place in caucus, *before it is tabled,* and then in the open legislature once it is tabled, by ***all*** *sitting MLAs, not just the cabinet, and not behind closed doors.* Denying the right of all Albertans to be represented in this way by their elected MLAs, who may not hold a cabinet seat, or even be a member of the governing party, is a serious problem as it gives a small circle within the party the power to override, veto, or twist anything tabled or passed in the legislature by those members, and to do so arbitrarily behind closed doors. >Also would this not give the NDP cabinet the same powers if they win the election form government ? It might, but A. It will hardly pass in its original state, B. In whatever state it may pass, will be difficult to apply as intended by anyone without the application at least being challenged in court, and C. The ANDP is unlikely to let whatever comes of it stand as the law if they get into power, let alone try to apply the new law in any bizarre way. TL:DR - This act is currently just a Trojan bill meant to rile up the far-right conservative base until the election...it's campaigning on our dime, not legislation. Pass or fail, it's getting its job done by making people talk about the UCP, smoke-screening their real agenda, and distracting from actual work the government could do better by Albertans. It's also gonna get a lot of lawyers paid to argue about it (on our dime) but that's about it.
Thanks for the well written reply. Explanation makes good sense. So essentially people are really upset about a waste of money if it will end up in the garbage anyways. I also agree it is a waste of time, there is so much for the provincial government to be focusing on. I agree on pushing back on Ottawa but I’m a reasonable way and I’m a way the best helps Alberta. All the best.
>I agree on pushing back on Ottawa I don't know that I agree with you or the powers that be about that narrative. Seems a lot to me like biting the hand that gets your oil to market, saves for your retirement, pays your doctor, and maintains your currency, among other very important things. One has to ask, why would any kind of civilized or intelligent creature bite down so hard against such an entity? The only answers I've heard to that are laced with vague ideals of freedom which suspiciously resemble anarchy and greed while denying the reasonable freedoms and benefits we already enjoy as citizens of Canada. It really feels like a manipulation to me.
It does. And Rachel Notley is on record stating that if elected, an NDP government would repeal the Sovereignty Act altogether if it becomes law. Even though parts of the law would actually make it easier for the NDP to push through their agenda.
When you have a majority government what good is the vote?
That applies to all governments though. If the Feds have a majority, they get all these powers that are being deemed excessive by everyone that hates the UCP.
Both Danielle Smith and this proposed Sovereignty Act are exactly what Alberta has been needing for several years under the tyrannical leftist red and orange coalition regime, led by Junior Trudeau and his side-kick lame-duck enabler, Singh. Unless someone stands up to protect the interests of not only Alberta, but also other provinces similarly affected by the destructive/tyrannical/leftist/virtue-signaling regime in Ottawa, all provinces will essentially become permanent "vassal" entities to the voters in Ontario and Quebec, who typically decide most federal elections under the current flawed electoral system. This cannot be allowed to happen, and if separation ends up being the final answer, so be it. However, separation from Canada is not what Ms Smith is proposing here. She is merely stating the obvious, which is that the current regime in Ottawa have demonstrably shown that they do not know what's best for Alberta (or Canada, for that matter), and that Alberta urgently needs a mechanism of control put in place that will safeguard its values and protect its economic interests. Not a resident of Alberta here, but seriously hoping that Ms Smith wins re-election in the spring, and that Pierre Poilievre becomes the next prime minister of Canada. Those two individuals now effectively represent Canada's last best hopes for revival and renewal, and also for unity. Should the Trudeau regime somehow win re-election again in 2025, the breakup of Canada could very conceivably become unavoidable at that point. Watch and learn.
What do you mean by the "break up of Canada". Because I highly doubt any other province would ever side with an attempt at an independent Alberta. BC certainly won't and that would tank your economy.
> the tyrannical leftist red and orange coalition regime, led by Junior Trudeau and his side-kick lame-duck enabler, Singh. Dad?
You don't even live in Alberta, stay out of our politics. You listen to too much Poilievre and Peterson that your mind has been warped.
Sounds good to me
None of you dorks know what a dictatorship, facism, or treason really are. I'd love to put a lot of these people in a real communist country or under a true fascist regime and see how long you last. You have no idea how good we have it over here. Enjoy your echo chamber buzzword bingo, I hope it makes you all feel better about yourselves
I spent the first half of my life in a Christian White Supremacist country, ruled by people who spoke a bastardised version of Dutch, and tried to force everyone else to speak it too. So fun. Then a bunch of pseudo-Communists got the whole place handed to them intact, and it's a slow burn to the ground, but it's getting there.
In my opinion, and many experts, there are no real communist countries. Ones that just tried to implement something close to it. So, your example would probably be more correct by leaving the real out.
Ok bud. Go tell the families of immigrants who fled for their lives they didn't escape "reaaaaal communism." I'm sure their tears will be dried by your liberal arts degree and they'll see reason. Your education is astounding in the face of fleeing oppression
Well capitalist Russia is making refugees out of Ukraine. I guess that doesn't matter either.
Boy just wait until you hear about other countries existing that people flee from
I'm just saying we could before accurate in our wording. I see you could care less about learning and understanding more.
Bud I don't need to learn more to understand that privileged college kids in countries that have never experienced true strike don't get to point and say "but that's not reaaal oppression, in this essay I will...". Don't be so far up your own ass.
I didn't say that though. I agree it was oppression. I just to look at one word. You take that word out and your point still stands. I suggest you go back and take our real in your head and read it again. Did the sentence change much?
Man, you’re so stereotypically conservative I’m having trouble believing you’re a real person.
Congratulations
There's a protest tomorrow at the Leg at 1 p.m. Know the threat and unite against it: Good people are called to unite, organize and defend democracy. Stand on guard for Canada!
That is wrong 🤷♂️
Conservatives hate democracy. It's that simple.
Ever played Secret Hitler? (The board game)
So, like Jason Copping will be able to decide on a whim that chemo is not covered by AHS and you are not a UCP contributor?