DisobeyTyranny
Based Member
... like we can afford the time and money for this knowing sabotage...
In 2019, the federal government introduced the Impact Assessment Act.
Commonly known as the “No More Pipelines Law”, the law is actually much worse than its nickname suggests.
It gave the federal government the power to block the construction of a wide range of energy and infrastructure projects, not just pipelines, and it applied not only to projects that cross provincial borders, but also to projects that were being built entirely within a single province!
The law was clearly unconstitutional, and the Alberta government and many other provincial governments told the federal government this at the time.
But the federal government went ahead and passed the law anyway.
So, Alberta challenged it.
The Alberta government went to the Alberta Court of Appeal in September 2019.
Three and a half years later, in May 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled 4-1 in Alberta's favour that the IAA was unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the federal government still claimed the law was constitutional, so they appealed to the Supreme Court.
Seven other provinces - Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan - agreed with Alberta and joined in on the case.
In October 2023, the Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, agreed with the provinces that the IAA was unconstitutional.
But the federal government still denied that the law was unconstitutional.
Just a few minutes after the ruling was released, Steven Guilbeault said in an interview that the federal government planned to keep the Impact Assessment Act in place, but might make some changes to the law.
In 2024, when the federal government announced the changes that they were planning to make, we noted that the changes were so minor that the law would clearly still be unconstitutional.
But, for the federal government, that was the point, and they went ahead with their very minor amendments.
That brings us to this week.
Alberta is back before the Alberta Court of Appeal, arguing that the revised version of the Impact Assessment Act still clearly intrudes into provincial control over natural resources and local projects, and is therefore still unconstitutional.
Assuming Alberta wins again, and assuming the federal government appeals to the Supreme Court again, and assuming the other provinces join in on the Supreme Court case again, we still may not get an answer from the Supreme Court until 2027 or even 2028.
Just think about what that means for a second:
That division of powers is the foundation of Confederation.
It was designed to protect regional autonomy and prevent exactly this kind of overreach.
But what happens when one order of government repeatedly stretches its authority, forces years of litigation, faces no real consequence for overstepping, and then simply does it all again?
What options remain for the provinces in that position?
Meanwhile, projects and investments remain uncertain.
This situation is not sustainable.
This case isn’t just about one piece of legislation.
It’s about whether constitutional boundaries still mean what they say - or whether they can be stretched, tested, and re-tested indefinitely.
At some point, structural reform has to be part of the conversation.
Canadians deserve clarity.
They deserve certainty.
And they deserve a constitutional order that actually respects provincial jurisdiction - not one that has to be re-litigated every few years.
That’s why our work matters.
We are pushing for serious, durable reforms that protect provincial autonomy and ensure that constitutional boundaries mean something in practice - not just on paper.
If you believe provinces should not have to fight the same battle over and over again…
If you believe constitutional limits should be respected the first time… then you see that separation and the bust up of the globalist cartel in the formerly wonderful canada is the only option really left!
In 2019, the federal government introduced the Impact Assessment Act.
Commonly known as the “No More Pipelines Law”, the law is actually much worse than its nickname suggests.
It gave the federal government the power to block the construction of a wide range of energy and infrastructure projects, not just pipelines, and it applied not only to projects that cross provincial borders, but also to projects that were being built entirely within a single province!
The law was clearly unconstitutional, and the Alberta government and many other provincial governments told the federal government this at the time.
But the federal government went ahead and passed the law anyway.
So, Alberta challenged it.
The Alberta government went to the Alberta Court of Appeal in September 2019.
Three and a half years later, in May 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled 4-1 in Alberta's favour that the IAA was unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the federal government still claimed the law was constitutional, so they appealed to the Supreme Court.
Seven other provinces - Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan - agreed with Alberta and joined in on the case.
In October 2023, the Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, agreed with the provinces that the IAA was unconstitutional.
But the federal government still denied that the law was unconstitutional.
Just a few minutes after the ruling was released, Steven Guilbeault said in an interview that the federal government planned to keep the Impact Assessment Act in place, but might make some changes to the law.
In 2024, when the federal government announced the changes that they were planning to make, we noted that the changes were so minor that the law would clearly still be unconstitutional.
But, for the federal government, that was the point, and they went ahead with their very minor amendments.
That brings us to this week.
Alberta is back before the Alberta Court of Appeal, arguing that the revised version of the Impact Assessment Act still clearly intrudes into provincial control over natural resources and local projects, and is therefore still unconstitutional.
Assuming Alberta wins again, and assuming the federal government appeals to the Supreme Court again, and assuming the other provinces join in on the Supreme Court case again, we still may not get an answer from the Supreme Court until 2027 or even 2028.
Just think about what that means for a second:
- The federal government passes a clearly unconstitutional law.
- The provinces defend their jurisdiction by going to court.
- After more than four years in court, the highest court in the country agrees that the law is unconstitutional.
- A few weeks later, the federal government makes a few minor tweaks to the legislation and claims it's now constitutional again, despite it clearly not being so.
- The provinces have to go back to court for another two, three, or even four more years to make the same arguments all over again.
That division of powers is the foundation of Confederation.
It was designed to protect regional autonomy and prevent exactly this kind of overreach.
But what happens when one order of government repeatedly stretches its authority, forces years of litigation, faces no real consequence for overstepping, and then simply does it all again?
What options remain for the provinces in that position?
Meanwhile, projects and investments remain uncertain.
This situation is not sustainable.
This case isn’t just about one piece of legislation.
It’s about whether constitutional boundaries still mean what they say - or whether they can be stretched, tested, and re-tested indefinitely.
At some point, structural reform has to be part of the conversation.
Canadians deserve clarity.
They deserve certainty.
And they deserve a constitutional order that actually respects provincial jurisdiction - not one that has to be re-litigated every few years.
That’s why our work matters.
We are pushing for serious, durable reforms that protect provincial autonomy and ensure that constitutional boundaries mean something in practice - not just on paper.
If you believe provinces should not have to fight the same battle over and over again…
If you believe constitutional limits should be respected the first time… then you see that separation and the bust up of the globalist cartel in the formerly wonderful canada is the only option really left!
Upvote
2