|
|
|
You can and surprisingly the most gullible or partisan will believe that our big problems with health care and education, which are both provincial responsibilities, are somehow caused by the Feds.
Oh look!!!!!!! Another squirrel!
This is sickening. Truly.
So the now former President of Hungary found out. That he was voted out of office came as a complete surprise to him and his regime … people came out of the woodwork in droves and threw the dictator out.
Also the SCC Had ruled against Saskatchewan in a similar move. Even if they do make changes it will be held up by court challenges. They can't even use the Not withstanding clause.
I think they know that and I think they're quite happy to see that happen and then simply use it as yet another example of federal interference in Alberta affairs.
That SCC ruling was under a Charter challenge, why wouldn't the notwithstanding clause apply?
The notwithstanding clause is proving itself to be a horrifically bad inclusion in the Charter, but if it applied to s. 3 we would no longer have a functional democracy at all. It would be beyond catastrophic.
She's got some chutzpah talking about federal overreach when they overreach into municipal affairs on the regular. Classic projection. I wish I shared some of the hope that the public will remember all this next election but I fear Alberta will do what it always does
Also the use of the term "Removal of provincial rights" when it is clearly a response to the province removing people's rights. You can't make this stuff up.
I feel the need to push back on this statement a bit. The Charter codified many rights and freedoms, but Canada was free (for most) and a democracy long before there was a Charter. There are both written (the Constitution Acts) and unwritten aspects (the PM and Cabinet being a prime example) to the Canadian Constitution. It's a complex and continuously evolving debate and many people with legitimate points of view objected to the Charter's inclusion in the Constitution.
