>University of Alberta constitutional law professor Eric Adams said Friday it’s not clear what Alberta is seeking through legislation, given the Constitution already grants provinces some control over implementing agreements that involve areas of provincial jurisdiction.
>”For a long time, the law has been stable in this area and divides authority along some fairly clear lines,” he said, adding that the federal government can implement terms of international agreements on topics it has jurisdiction over while provinces can choose to legislate those agreements if they impact their jurisdiction.
>”I’m not sure what provincial legislation would add to those existing constitutional rules and I guess we’ll have to wait and see.”
>Adams said Canada’s division of powers means implementing the terms of international accords is already a bit “awkward.”
>”Just because the federal government has signed onto a treaty doesn’t necessarily mean they can back the promise of those subjects as a legislative matter because some of those issues might be in provincial jurisdiction.”
>He said this means the federal government can either get pre-emptive support from the provinces before Canada signs international treaties or seek that support through negotiations afterwards.
>”The other option is to see which provinces take up the subject and just accept the reality that some provinces might not.”
>Adams said another complication at play is that there are some subjects where there are overlapping jurisdictional powers between Ottawa and the provinces, citing health care and the environment as examples.
>That “messy reality” doesn’t mean Ottawa can just mandate provinces to live up to international commitments the federal government makes though, he said.
>”Canada can enter into those treaties, but it’s always got to fall to the regular division of powers about whether or not those promises are implemented.”
>Opposition NDP justice critic Irfan Sabir said Friday the purported legislation is another example of the province picking a fight with Ottawa just to appease Smith’s United Conservative Party base.
>”This is ridiculous political theatre,” Sabir said in a statement. “If Parliament has acted beyond their jurisdiction, it’s for the courts to decide, not the legislature.”
>”Danielle Smith needs to learn she is premier, not the prime minister.”
>Blackett didn’t say when the government plans to table the legislation.
4 Comments
MATA (Make Alberta Territory Again)
why is Alberta like this
>University of Alberta constitutional law professor Eric Adams said Friday it’s not clear what Alberta is seeking through legislation, given the Constitution already grants provinces some control over implementing agreements that involve areas of provincial jurisdiction.
>”For a long time, the law has been stable in this area and divides authority along some fairly clear lines,” he said, adding that the federal government can implement terms of international agreements on topics it has jurisdiction over while provinces can choose to legislate those agreements if they impact their jurisdiction.
>”I’m not sure what provincial legislation would add to those existing constitutional rules and I guess we’ll have to wait and see.”
>Adams said Canada’s division of powers means implementing the terms of international accords is already a bit “awkward.”
>”Just because the federal government has signed onto a treaty doesn’t necessarily mean they can back the promise of those subjects as a legislative matter because some of those issues might be in provincial jurisdiction.”
>He said this means the federal government can either get pre-emptive support from the provinces before Canada signs international treaties or seek that support through negotiations afterwards.
>”The other option is to see which provinces take up the subject and just accept the reality that some provinces might not.”
>Adams said another complication at play is that there are some subjects where there are overlapping jurisdictional powers between Ottawa and the provinces, citing health care and the environment as examples.
>That “messy reality” doesn’t mean Ottawa can just mandate provinces to live up to international commitments the federal government makes though, he said.
>”Canada can enter into those treaties, but it’s always got to fall to the regular division of powers about whether or not those promises are implemented.”
>Opposition NDP justice critic Irfan Sabir said Friday the purported legislation is another example of the province picking a fight with Ottawa just to appease Smith’s United Conservative Party base.
>”This is ridiculous political theatre,” Sabir said in a statement. “If Parliament has acted beyond their jurisdiction, it’s for the courts to decide, not the legislature.”
>”Danielle Smith needs to learn she is premier, not the prime minister.”
>Blackett didn’t say when the government plans to table the legislation.
>The legislature will resume sitting next month.
!ping Can