The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) will be appearing at the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in Attorney General of Quebec vs. Attorney General of Canada on Wednesday and Thursday. .“The outcome of this case is significant because it could also have implications on the constitutionality of the newly proposed Alberta Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act,” said CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn in a Tuesday press release. .“Political and legal observers should pay close attention.” .The Alberta government introduced the Alberta Sovereignty Act to fight Canadian government laws or policies affecting provincial interests on November 29. .READ MORE: Smith introduces bill to defend Albertans from Ottawa overreach.It will use the Alberta Sovereignty Act to stand up to Canadian government overreach and interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction if passed, including in private property, natural resources, agriculture, firearms, economic regulations, and the delivery of heath, education, and other social programs.."The Canadian Constitution is clear — the federal and provincial governments are equals, each with our own areas of exclusive jurisdiction,” said Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. .The release said the Attorney General of Quebec is challenging the constitutionality of portions of the Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth, and Families. This act establishes a national standards framework for indigenous child and family services and recognizes a right to self-government for them. .The Attorney General of Quebec argues sections dealing with national standards are invalid because they are inconsistent with federalism and responsible government. It said the Canadian government cannot require a province to implement its law unless it consents. .While the national standards in the bill might fall within federal jurisdiction under Section 91(24) of the Canadian Constitution, the release said the CCF will be arguing the way the federal government is going about it crosses a constitutional line. .If the Canadian government can direct a province’s executive branch and public service, Van Geyn said it could “remove a check on power and erode responsible government.” She added coercion is inconsistent with the diversity and experimentation federalism promotes. .The CCF is represented in this case by McCarthy Tetrault lawyers Jesse Hartery, Simon Bouthillier, and Allison Spiegel. .Van Geyn said there is “no dispute that the federal government could have consulted with the provinces and asked them to consent to implementing federal law.” .“However, the federal government cannot coerce the provinces into operationalizing a federal law,” she said.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) will be appearing at the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in Attorney General of Quebec vs. Attorney General of Canada on Wednesday and Thursday. .“The outcome of this case is significant because it could also have implications on the constitutionality of the newly proposed Alberta Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act,” said CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn in a Tuesday press release. .“Political and legal observers should pay close attention.” .The Alberta government introduced the Alberta Sovereignty Act to fight Canadian government laws or policies affecting provincial interests on November 29. .READ MORE: Smith introduces bill to defend Albertans from Ottawa overreach.It will use the Alberta Sovereignty Act to stand up to Canadian government overreach and interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction if passed, including in private property, natural resources, agriculture, firearms, economic regulations, and the delivery of heath, education, and other social programs.."The Canadian Constitution is clear — the federal and provincial governments are equals, each with our own areas of exclusive jurisdiction,” said Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. .The release said the Attorney General of Quebec is challenging the constitutionality of portions of the Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth, and Families. This act establishes a national standards framework for indigenous child and family services and recognizes a right to self-government for them. .The Attorney General of Quebec argues sections dealing with national standards are invalid because they are inconsistent with federalism and responsible government. It said the Canadian government cannot require a province to implement its law unless it consents. .While the national standards in the bill might fall within federal jurisdiction under Section 91(24) of the Canadian Constitution, the release said the CCF will be arguing the way the federal government is going about it crosses a constitutional line. .If the Canadian government can direct a province’s executive branch and public service, Van Geyn said it could “remove a check on power and erode responsible government.” She added coercion is inconsistent with the diversity and experimentation federalism promotes. .The CCF is represented in this case by McCarthy Tetrault lawyers Jesse Hartery, Simon Bouthillier, and Allison Spiegel. .Van Geyn said there is “no dispute that the federal government could have consulted with the provinces and asked them to consent to implementing federal law.” .“However, the federal government cannot coerce the provinces into operationalizing a federal law,” she said.
