Canadian Firearms Registry

they come and take your guns.

Then on top of that, uh, the last conservative government back in, like, 2010 scrapped what we call the Long Gun Registry.

So even your, uh, your non-restricted guns, like your, your shotguns and whatnot, were...

They were re- registered at the time.

That's correct.

In the Long Gun Registry case, this court, uh, was quite clear that cooperative federalism cannot be used to alter the interpretation of an otherwise valid federal enactment.

And here, the respondents do not challenge-

Mr. Sethi, if somebody was playing a game of poker and they had, uh, the belief that somebody in Ontario was playing a game of poker and they believed that somebody in Malta was engaging in fraud in playing that game, couldn't they sue in Ontario? Couldn't they sue for recovery of whatever the t-tort would be or, uh, for recovery of the, um, whatever was fraudulently taken from them in the game? Wouldn't they have-- wouldn't Ontario courts have jurisdiction to, uh, deal with a claim in, in Ontario?

Um, look at the words, but also the intention of, uh, Parliament or the legislature in, uh, passing these sections.

And Alberta submits, uh, that in conducting the modern approach to determining, uh, the intention of Parliament, uh, and interpreting Section 207 sub 1 sub A This court's federalism jurisprudence can be a contextual factor and can provide a useful tool when considering both that intention and the object of the act.

Now, Alberta is not proposing in this appeal that the federalism principles are determinative of the statutory interpretation exercise, or that the principles should somehow be used to limit the scope of legislative authority or to impose positive obligations on either the provincial or federal governments, as, uh, was recently raised, or I guess in 2015 was raised in the, uh, long gun registry r- uh, case before, uh, this court.

Instead, Alberta submits that the well-established, uh, federalism principles can assist when interpreting a federal statutory provision where that provision, um, allows for consideration of the interpretation and whether it would result in a conflict with provincial legislation.