Halifax business community says city deserves three more seats in N.S. Legislature
A bill that would allow the Nova Scotia government to carve out a protected riding for the Acadian region of Chéticamp has passed the committee stage without changes, despite voter parity concerns raised by the Halifax Chamber of Commerce.
The legislation is in response to a Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruling that said the Charter rights of the Acadians in northwestern Cape Breton were violated when they weren't considered for protected riding status in 2019.
Nova Scotia has four protected ridings whose boundaries are shielded from electoral redistribution and ensure effective representation of Acadian and African Nova Scotian voters.
They include Argyle, Clare and Richmond to encourage Acadian representation in the Nova Scotia Legislature, and the district of Preston to encourage African Nova Scotian representation.
The bill would allow the government to appoint a special electoral boundaries commission to create another protected riding for the Acadians, after the court said Chéticamp and surrounding areas represent a cultural community of interest.
But Halifax chamber president Patrick Sullivan told the legislature's law amendments committee on Monday that a full commission should be struck to look at representation across the province.
Sullivan says while the chamber acknowledges the court decision regarding Chéticamp, there remains a significant loss of voter parity between Halifax and other regions of the province.
He says Halifax currently has 23 of the legislature's 55 seats when the chamber believes it should have about 26 seats based on its growing population.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Edmonton Journal
a day ago
- Edmonton Journal
Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to the US, charged with transporting people in the country illegally
Article content Abrego Garcia's attorneys called the case 'baseless.' 'There's no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,' attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said. Federal Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville, Tennessee, determined that Abrego Garcia will be held in custody until at least next Friday, when there will be an arraignment and detention hearing. Abrego Garcia appeared in court wearing a short-sleeved, white, button-down shirt. When asked if he understood the charges, he told the judge: 'Si. Lo entiendo.' An interpreter then said: 'Yes. I understand.' Democrats and immigrant rights group had pressed for Abrego Garcia's release, with several lawmakers — including Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, where Abrego Garcia had lived for years — even traveling to El Salvador to visit him. A federal judge had ordered him to be returned in April and the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by directing the government to work to bring him back.
Montreal Gazette
a day ago
- Montreal Gazette
Libman: On death, taxes and the future of minority rights in Quebec
Benjamin Franklin famously wrote: 'In this world nothing can be certain, except death and taxes.' Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, comes pretty close. It is the ironclad constitutional protection of minority-language education rights in this country. It has consistently been interpreted by Quebec courts to uphold the right of the English-speaking minority to control and manage its school system. And it's exempt from the application of the notwithstanding clause. After the Coalition Avenir Québec government adopted Bill 40 in 2020, abolishing and replacing school boards with service centres under greater government control, the province's English boards challenged the law as unconstitutional. In 2023 Quebec Superior Court Judge Sylvain Lussier agreed, ruling in no uncertain terms that much of Bill 40 infringes on the English-speaking community's constitutional rights to govern and control its educational institutions. The CAQ government, however, appealed the judgment. In April of this year, Quebec Court of Appeal judges Robert Mainville, Christine Baudouin and Judith Harvie handed down their ruling. They also concluded that parts of Bill 40 infringe on the section of the Charter of Rights that guarantees minority-language education rights and couldn't be demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit on charter rights in a free and democratic society. Another slam dunk for minority education rights. Yet this week, the Legault government went ahead anyways to request leave to appeal this judgment by Quebec's highest court to the Supreme Court of Canada. The irony here shouldn't be lost: Quebec's nationalist government is asking Canada's highest court to overturn rulings from the two Quebec courts. I have little doubt Quebec's lawyers have advised the government they cannot possibly win this case at the Supreme Court. This appeal seems purely political. No one would expect the CAQ to dare show any surrender in assailing minority language rights at the risk of giving a drumstick to their more nationalist rivals, the separatist Parti Québécois. The Supreme Court should refuse to hear the appeal considering how categorically the two Quebec courts unanimously ruled in what seems an open-and-shut case. For several reasons, the ideal scenario would be for the Supreme Court to say the Quebec courts composed of Lussier, Mainville, Baudouin and Harvie have already made an irreproachable decision. Case closed. This, in fact, could even benefit the CAQ (which they might be secretly hoping for) because if the Supreme Court does take the case and inevitably invalidates sections of the law sometime next year, around Quebec election time, it would help provide ripe fodder for the PQ to condemn Canada for 'again' crushing Quebec's aspirations and ignoring its 'distinctiveness' — while conveniently glossing over the fact that Quebec francophone judges had also unanimously struck it down. But watch out for another concern. Within days of the appeal court's ruling, coincidentally or not, Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette announced his intention to launch negotiations with Ottawa about amending the Constitution so that Quebec judges are chosen from among members of the Quebec Bar, recommended by the Quebec government. Currently, superior and appeal court judges are appointed by the federal government. Judges in this country act as a check and balance for government legislation, if challenged. They are impartial arbiters, interpreting the charters of rights to balance individual or minority rights against political objectives. In Quebec, where an important linguistic minority relies on constitutional protections, the courts are their only redress at times, often against the backdrop of a highly charged language environment. We need only look across the border at the U.S. to see what can happen when the court system becomes politicized. If certain Quebec governments started to exert influence on the courts by appointing judges known for favouring collective rights over individual rights, or harbouring secessionist sympathies, for example, the last vestiges of protection for minority communities, including the certainty of Section 23, could vanish.
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy
WASHINGTON – U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs are facing legal headwinds for the first time — but he has other tools he could deploy in his quest to realign global trade. A federal appeals court is still deciding whether there will be a stay on Trump's universal tariffs enacted through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month. IEEPA is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. It had never previously been used for tariffs. Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl and migrants in order to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court found Trump exceeded presidential powers by using IEEPA to broadly implement the duties. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and the White House said it would take the case to the Supreme Court. Following the ruling, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he was confident the court ultimately would decide in Trump's favour. Hassett said that if it doesn't, 'we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again.' While the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress, Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said it passed laws over the last century that allow the president some control in certain situations. Trump is now looking to use those laws — some of them for the first time. The president may be considering Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if the country 'is treating products of the United States disfavourably, compared to products of another foreign country,' said Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Section 338 has never been used by a president before and Peisch said it might be difficult for the administration to make a case for it. Trump also might look to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to take trade actions if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. Trump used this law during his first administration to impose tariffs on some Chinese imports and European Union goods. But Section 301 requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed — investigations that could take weeks or months and would include a period for public comment. That certainly would slow down Trump's efforts to target the world with tariffs. If the president is looking for speed, Peisch said, he might try to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — another law that has never before been used. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Section 122 allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. But those duties can only stay in place for a maximum of 150 days before they need Congressional approval to continue. That reduces Trump's leverage if his goal is to pressure countries to sign trade deals — those countries could simply decide to wait the president out. Trump also has said tariffs will help pay down the deficit; the short-term Section 122 power is unlikely to work as a long-term revenue strategy. Ultimately, Peisch said, none of the replacement statutes could easily build Trump's universal tariff wall around the United States. 'Nothing is a great fit without a lot of work,' she said. 'So I think it's potentially going to be a challenge.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.
