ANALYSIS | The Alberta Sovereignty Act plays a dangerous game — for no rational reason | 24CA News
What was touted initially because the Alberta Sovereignty Act was lastly tabled within the province’s legislature this week beneath a extra elaborate title — the Alberta Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act.
If the extra phrases within the official title sound acquainted, it may be as a result of they bear a putting resemblance to a movement Stephen Harper tabled within the House of Commons as prime minister in 2006. Harper proposed that the House formally acknowledge that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”
Harper’s movement was an try to parry a movement tabled by the Bloc Quebecois that known as on the House to acknowledge that “Quebeckers form a nation.” And the BQ’s movement was a useful approach of inflicting hassle for the Liberal Party – which was embroiled in each a contentious management race and an inside debate about whether or not to use the idea of nationhood to some or the entire individuals in Quebec, and to the nation writ massive.
The quick results of all this parliamentary brinksmanship and phrase video games was that just about everybody discovered one thing in Harper’s movement that they had been keen to assist. The decision handed by a vote of 265 to 16.
One of the 16 dissenters was Ken Dryden, the legendary goalie who was a Liberal MP from 2004 to 2011. A couple of hours earlier than the vote was taken, Dryden rose within the House and condemned the entire affair as unserious and probably harmful.
“This feels wrong because it does not feel as serious as it must be. It feels like games – bad, manipulative, opportunistic games, political games,” Dryden mentioned. “All these games and manipulations are not for us. They only create a slippery slope for later on.
“The public has realized to simply accept most issues political however not this. The stakes are too excessive.”
Sixteen years later, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe wants his province to be recognized as a “nation inside a nation” and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants the freedom to ignore federal laws while remaining part of a “united Canada.”
Perhaps the influence of Harper’s motion was merely rhetorical. Maybe Moe and Smith would have found a way to their current positions regardless.
But Dryden’s warning about gamesmanship seems relevant again.
‘A game of political chicken’
According to an open – even proud – explanation by one of the minds that conceived the idea of an Alberta Sovereignty Act, the legislation was supposed to be unconstitutional. That seems to give the game away. On that score, Smith’s government seems to have succeeded.
The bill “basically upends various stabilizing ideas in our Canadian constitutional order,” mentioned Eric Adams, a constitutional scholar on the University of Alberta.
“There is manifestly no foundation beneath the Constitution for a province to try to nullify the impact of a federal legislation as a result of it thinks … it’s inflicting hurt to these individuals within the province,” said Carissima Mathen, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.
WATCH | Sovereignty Act would give provincial cabinet sweeping new powers:
Wednesday, November 30 – Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s signature legislation would grant her cabinet new powers to bypass the legislative assembly and unilaterally amend provincial laws. We’ll talk with a constitutional law expert about whether the provinces have too much leeway.
“This is about as clearly an unconstitutional gambit as I’ve ever seen in my skilled lifetime. The premier is participating in a sport of political hen,” Ian Holloway, dean of the law school at the University of Calgary, told The Line.
As a general principle, governments shouldn’t deliberately do unconstitutional things. But the bill’s proponents presumably would argue that Alberta’s situation is so dire and its treatment by the federal government so unfair that such extreme measures are necessary.
That logic is at least problematic. But if Albertans feel cheated and anxious, they should ask how likely it is that the Sovereignty Act will improve their lives or livelihoods. For all the time and energy this legislation will consume – for all its inherent danger – Albertans might at least expect it to lead to some meaningful and positive change for the better.
Instead, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce – an organization that is not stacked with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s biggest fans – is warning that the Sovereignty Act will “impede new funding … cut back business certainty and stability, and create challenges for companies to draw and retain expertise.”
How will this ‘play out’?
Trudeau said Wednesday that his government will “see how this performs out” before deciding whether to do anything about it. He surely understands that anything the federal government could do right now – such as dusting off the ancient power of disallowance or referring the legislation to the Supreme Court – would be framed by Smith as an escalation.
Even loudly criticizing the act would only give Smith the sort of fight she is clearly very eager to have ahead of a provincial election next year.
In that respect, Smith’s gambit seems like the natural evolution of her predecessor’s promise to get tough with Alberta’s alleged tormentors, including the prime minister. Jason Kenney didn’t manage to fundamentally change anything about the world. So now Smith is vowing to get tougher.
“We’ve tried various things previously and it hasn’t labored,” Smith said this week. “So we have got to strive one thing new.”
There are real issues at hand for the province, real questions to be asked about how Alberta can best make the necessary transition to a net-zero world. It’s not obvious how blaming Trudeau – or picking new, unconstitutional fights with the federal government – would answer any of those questions.
So what happens if – or when – this doesn’t seem to accomplish anything?
Politicians who engage in such tactics are often accused of “taking part in politics” – though that can sometimes seem like accusing a baseball player of playing baseball. The most important part is what they’re playing with.
In this case, what’s being played with are things like the Constitution, the rule of law and national unity. At an absolute minimum, there is the risk – as Kenney himself seemed to acknowledge while resigning this week – that this legislation will inspire even more polarization and conflict.
If it’s a game, it’s a particularly dangerous one.
