Uncategorized 

Five things to know about the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

3oliver

On Tuesday, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith introduced her keystone piece of legislation, meant to allow the province to push back against what she calls “federal government overreach.”

The controversial motion would give the Alberta government a means to potentially ignore federal laws or regulations that it considers harmful to the province’s interests.

Here are five things you need to know about the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act.

1. The act will work by a motion in the legislature

Under the act, a legislator will introduce a motion saying a federal policy is unconstitutional or harmful to Alberta. If the motion passes, it will make recommendations to cabinet on how to fight back. It will be up to cabinet on how to proceed.

2. Cabinet will be able to direct various provincial entities

This will include municipalities, provincial agencies and groups tasked with administering provincial programs. It could also include school boards and hospitals.

They could be told how to enforce — or not to enforce — federal laws.

3. The UCP government already has ideas on what to use it against

The government says it could be used in the case of Bill C-69;
the federal government’s firearms buyback; planned fertilizer emissions reductions; strings-attached health-care funding.

But, so far, it’s unclear how it could be used in these situations.

4. It won’t apply to court cases

Early talk about the Sovereignty Act suggested it would empower the Alberta government to ignore court rulings, but Premier Danielle Smith’s people had rejected that idea. The government now says it will respect court decisions.

5. It gives the cabinet unilateral powers to amend legislation

If the motion passes in legislature debate, cabinet will be able to amend legislation on its own. But the government has tried to argue these amendments will be debated.

It’s confusing — and a sign of further controversy to come. Scholars are already debating whether the act is constitutional.

Powered by WPeMatico