ALBERTA SOVEREIGNTY ACT JUSTIFIED? - PT.2
The Truth About Bill 1
If you haven’t read Part 1 of the Sovereignty Act review, Click Here. In reading this article, don’t assume that you already know what I’m going to say; so keep reading to the end. Today, Danielle Smith made this tweet, which confirms a lot of what was said in Part 1 of this review.
In our first review of Danielle Smith’s Bill 1, titled “ALBERTA SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN A UNITED CANADA ACT”, we discussed in detail the justifications that the Alberta Provincial Government provided for the reasoning behind its decision to draft the legislation. I summarized that Bill 1 sounds like a reverse disallowance. The Federal Government, through the Governor General, has the power to disallow an ACT of Alberta’s Legislature if it deems it harmful to Canadians or if it infringes on Federal jurisdiction. Alberta seems to be trying to create its own disallowance clause to ignore the Acts of the Federal Parliament that is harmful to Albertans or infringe on Albertan jurisdiction. I went further to state that such a reverse disallowance could only be enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, through the Lieutenant Governor of the Province, which is a democratic process. I gained all of this knowledge from the justifications portion of the bill, all without even reading the legislative portion.
So what I’m saying is, simply reading the preamble of the bill will reveal to you that this bill does not do what the NDP is claiming. In this article, I’ll be simplifying the most important sections of the legislative portion of the bill.
Section 2 of the Bill - “Interpretation”
This section 2 makes it clear that the Act does not authorize the Alberta Legislature, Government or a person to act in opposition to the Constitution of Canada or Federal law. It goes on to say that the Act is not designed to or allowed to infringe on Indigenous people’s treaty rights as recognized in the Canadian Constitution.
This is a little tricky, because if the Act, as I alluded to, is some form of a Provincial disallowance, allowing Alberta to engage in Provincial dissent, then this would mean that Federal Law may be challenged in some way or form. So what exactly is the point of the bill if it doesn’t challenge Federal Law that infringes on the rights of Albertans or the Province’s constitutional jurisdictions?
If I were to guess, Alberta would not directly challenge federal law, but they will do it indirectly, just as is being done right now by Saskatchewan by introducing its own Fire Arms Act. The parts of the Saskatchewan Fire Arms Act that caught my attention are:
Federal agents who wish to seize legally owned firearms from Albertans must be licensed with the Albertan Government
These Federal agents must offer financial compensation to the owner of the firearm within 45 days of seizure, at market value and as determined by the firearm commissioner.
The purpose of the two points above is clearly to cause the Federal Government some headaches because the Act seems to imply that Saks’s firearm commissioner can place an exorbitant cost to the Federal Government for it to be able to seize legally purchased firearms from their owners. The Albertan Government will also have the power to define responsibilities and cost of licensure for Federal Gun seizure agents. I suspect that the Albertan Government/Legislature will introduce legislation or engage in actions that produce the result of frustrating the Federal Government into compliance with Albertan law.
Section 3 of the Bill - Resolution
This section speaks to the condition in which the Act can be used, within the confines of the Canadian Constitution (as referenced above). Now, this part is interesting, because the Federal and Provincial NDP have made the claim that the Act would allow the Government to go into a dark room and make decisions without the buy-in of the Legislature, and have said that it will make Danielle Smith a dictator. We already know that’s not true, but let’s confirm it.
The bill states that these are the only way that the act can be used:
A Member of the Executive Council (Cabinet) tables a motion of a resolution that the Legislative Assembly must approve or reject.
The resolution must be in accordance with the Act, which states according to the Legislative Assembly that a federal initiative infringes on jurisdictions under Alberta’s legislative authority, violates the rights and freedoms of Albertans or causes or is anticipated to cause harm to Albertans.
The resolution must set out the nature of the harm.
The resolution must identify measures that the Lieutenant Governor in Council should consider with respect to a federal initiative.
Finally, it clearly states that the Lieutenant Governor in Council is the one designated to take action or give direction, not the Government of Alberta and not the Legislative Assembly. From point number 1, it was clear that resolutions stemming from this Act are done via the democratic voting processing within the Legislature. This completely abolishes the claims of dictatorships and dark rooms.
Section 4 of the Bill - Powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
The Act gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to refuse an order from any approved resolution from section 3. This section says that if the Lieutenant Governor in Council is satisfied that carrying out a measure from the resolution is in the public interest, she can direct a Minister or Provincial entity responsible for enactment to carry out the order.
The problematic part of this section, however, is that the Lieutenant Governor seemingly has the power to order the Government to make changes to existing legislation and possibly create new ones. The opponents to the Act have not made this clear, which is where all the confusion is. The bill doesn’t make Danielle Smith a dictator, it simply increases the powers of the Legislative Assembly to provide the Lieutenant Governor with the power to make legislative changes. I think this is a problem that needs to be rectified in the bill.
So is Alberta's Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act Justified?
Is the Act practical? It depends on how it’s used.
Is the Act unconstitutional? In my opinion, no.
Will it cause a constitutional crisis? It depends on whether or not the Prime Minister/Federal Government intrudes on Alberta’s constitutional jurisdiction or Alberta’s Legislature directly opposes federal laws that are in conflict with Alberta’s laws.
Will it benefit Alberta in the long run? Yes
Could it be used against Albertans? Yes, which is why it’s important that no precedent is set by anyone who abuses the Act.
The problem is, under section 8 of the Act, “No Cause of Action”, just like the Federal Emergencies Act, no public authority or body can be held legally responsible for any actions or in-action that takes place under this Act. Out of every section in this Act, in addition to the increased powers of the Lieutenant Governor, this is the part that jumps out at me, and if I were an Alberta, I would be very concerned about this.
Whenever drafting or supporting legislation, politicians and voters must think about all the ways in which a Government that they do not like (and who has a majority in the Legislature/House) can manipulate the legislation and use it to harm their own citizens. This is a lesson in Critical Government Theory; don’t simply support Legislation because it’s your favourite Government or politicians in power. Question it, pull it apart, and find the parts that you like or dislike. For me, it’s the “No Cause of Action” section, because I am in favour of civil and criminal charges against politicians who abuse their authority. Other than that, I personally believe the Act to be justified in its intention.
If you haven’t subscribed yet, subscribe today, only certain parts of the Critical Government Theory chapters will be accessible to free subscribers. The introduction of the book is coming soon! So stay tuned. Leave a comment below, let me know what you think about my analysis of Danielle Smith’s Bill.