Daniel Smith’s government seeks to clarify sovereign law authority — as former rivals unite behind her

EDMONTON — Alberta’s legislature was thrown into chaos on Wednesday, a day after Prime Minister Daniel Smith introduced her underlying sovereignty law in the name of fighting back against perceived federal abuses.

Amid a flurry of criticism from political scientists, legal experts and business leaders, state governments appeared to be trying to allay concerns about the amount of power the bill would concentrate in the United Conservative Cabinet.

But that reassurance has been met with more questions and criticism of the bill, which some say undermines the rule of law and others say it could hurt the state’s economy. .

On Tuesday, Alberta Sovereignty within the United Canada Act, as it is fully named, became the first bill introduced under the Smith administration.

This will allow the UCP government to introduce motions to the Legislature identifying federal initiatives or laws as unconstitutional or harmful to Alberta.

According to the bill, the motion specifies “one or more measures” that the Cabinet “should consider taking.” Motions are non-binding and “action” is not expressly defined in the Act.

If passed, the motion would unlock new powers in sovereignty law that would allow ministers to change state laws to counter federal action.

The law allows states to direct public agencies such as police, school boards, and universities to ignore federal laws deemed unconstitutional or “harmful” by the Legislative Assembly. increase.

Political scientists dispute what they characterize as giving the Cabinet extraordinary powers to change state law.

On Wednesday, the Alberta government issued a news release attempting to clarify what it suggested was a misunderstanding of how the law would be used.

“Sovereignty in the Canadian Uniform Law never permits the Cabinet to unilaterally amend the law unless it is first approved by the Legislative Assembly,” the new statement said.

“Resolutions containing legislative amendments must first be introduced, discussed, voted on and passed by the Legislative Assembly,” it added.

It appeared to run counter to comments from the Alberta Minister of Justice the day before. Choose and change the law. … Could you say yes or no?

“That’s right,” Shandro said at a press conference.

At a technical briefing on the bill, a ministry official on Tuesday explained how the bill would work, confirming ministers have the power to unilaterally change the law after the motion is passed. did.

The government may indicate that it intends to include all possible amendments in its motion to parliament, but that is not specified in the text of the bill.

If the Alberta Legislature approves a motion by Ottawa covering “anti-Alberta” measures, will the Cabinet essentially get a blank check to change the laws they see fit to respond? Or will Congress vote on a detailed plan containing all the legislative changes the Cabinet may deem necessary?

Lisa Young, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, said the clarification statement appeared to be an attempt by the UCP government to say: things and bad things.

What matters, Young said, is not what the government intended at the time, but what the law actually says.

“These politicians may change their minds about what they want to do with this. They may decide to wield power more broadly than they originally intended,” she added. rice field.

“If you have to issue a statement clarifying it the day after the law is introduced, you probably haven’t written the law well enough.”

Alberta’s NDP, on the other hand, could consider government bills before Parliament, but was told during a technical briefing by the Deputy Minister of Justice that the statement itself, trying to clarify things, was wrong. said.

Alberta’s NDP leader, Rachel Notley, said: “What I am showing is that the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice are currently either lying or incredibly incompetent and do not understand the legislation they have just submitted. It means that there is a

She suggested that the government withdraw it and try again.

When asked if the deputy minister could clarify whether the NDP interpreted his remarks correctly, Justice Department spokesman Ethan Lecavalier-Kidney told The Star that the NDP did not. but declined to comment further.

Starr requested an interview with the Minister of Justice or Deputy Minister of Justice, but they were not made available.

Martin Olszynski, professor of administrative law, has been writing about sovereignty law since Smith first proposed it in the spring.

“There is a lot of room here (for the cabinet) to exercise discretion,” said Orszysnki.

“What they are asking is that the people of Alberta believe in exercising[these powers]in a restraining way when they cannot even use the language of action to restrain themselves. It’s about getting it.”

Meanwhile, three UCP ministers once held a press conference denouncing Smith’s plans for sovereignty law during the UCP leadership race, in which they were all running, and now that the agenda has been submitted, she and I decided to stand with my arms crossed.

Alberta Finance Minister Travis Toos, who was seen as a candidate for the UCP leadership race alongside Jason Kenny, told reporters Wednesday that while campaigning to lead the party, After weeks of criticizing the new bill, he said he now supports the new bill.

“My concern was that a bill like this must be constitutional,” he said at a media scrum. “We had to respect the rule of law and had to do it in a way that continued to support the certainty and predictability of the economic environment.

“I believe these issues have been resolved, so I can say that I support this bill.”

Rajan Sawney and Brian Jean also defended a similar act, both running alongside Touz as a coaching candidate during the UCP race, denouncing ideas championed by then front-runner Smith. These two of him and his Toews now work in Smith’s cabinet.

“It’s constitutional,” Jean told reporters.

He said concerns that the bill gave the Cabinet the power to unilaterally change the law were beside the point.

The bill doesn’t say so, but interpretations took a different turn on Wednesday as it sought to clarify how reporters, the MLA and the government itself would affect state democracy.

Using files from The Canadian Press

share: