Quote:
Originally Posted by blender
Apples and Oranges.
The EA has been law since 1988, and it replaced the War Measures Act which was on the books for ages prior.
The EA has a very high threshold for its use. It has only been used once (Freedom Convoy 2022), and though there was a some debate about the justification, the threshold for use is very high.
There is no threshold limiting use of Smith's proposed law beyond cabinet deciding to use it, and there appears to be no limits to the types of things it s intended to be used for.
Also, the EA is designed to temporarily shift power to the federal government; a function that is necessary to maintain a federation. If the government of Canada is unable to take charge of the country during an emergency, then what's the point of being a country? Conversely, the Alberta Sovereignty Act is designed to do the opposite, to effectively counteract the Federal governments ability to be the the federal government.
Not the same in principle or in effect.
|
I don't even think that Smith and the government here even really need to pursue bill 1 to gain power to protect the province. We already have the notwithstanding clause built into our system which can be used at any time. We've already seen how it can be used effectively by Quebec to do whatever they want. Quebec calls that clause "the parliamentary sovereignty provision" within the Constitution.