Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
https://twitter.com/user/status/1598344335984320512
Jack Major, former Supreme Court justice:
Major, an Alberta resident who was on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1992 to 2005, said his first impression of the proposed act is that it's "really not that radical", if the ultimate arbiter will be the Supreme Court of Canada.
|
From the link, attributed to Jack Major:
Major suggested he wasn't concerned about the line in the proposed act that allows a motion to pass against federal legislation that's deemed "otherwise harmful to Albertans."
He said that phrase would have "no meaning" after the issue has been decided by the Supreme Court.
"The validity of federal legislation, if it's harmful in the opinion of Albertans is not going to be implemented until the court says it's constitutional."
The support, if you can call it that, is luke warm at best and really makes the argument that many of us are making against the Act. The Act is meaningless and a waste of time if all it says is the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what isn't. That already exists. If the feds propose something unconstitutional, the province can seek redress.
The idea that the province can take action against an otherwise constitutionally sound federal law, because it "causes harm" to Albertans is an absolute joke. Income taxes, arguably, causes harm to Albertans. So can those be ignored or not? The answer is rather obvious, so why bother.