Politicians clash over whether sovereignty act would give province unchecked powers

Premier Danielle Smith says the government's proposed sovereignty act would not give the provincial cabinet unchecked powers to rewrite laws, while critics say the premier's signature bill would do just that. 

"It gives unprecedented ability to a brand new premier to overwhelm and sidestep the legislative assembly of this province and it is an attack on the democratic rights of Albertans, and through that, an attack on the stability of our economy," NDP Leader Rachel Notley said on her way into the legislative chamber Wednesday.

In question period and in scrums, members of the Smith government denied the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act allows cabinet to change, add or suspend laws without the oversight of the legislature.

Smith said she looked forward to educating Notley, who is a lawyer, on the contents of the 12-page Bill 1.

"We know that Albertans want us to act on this," Smith said.

If passed, the bill would allow the legislature to pass a motion identifying an area where it believes the federal government has acted unconstitutionally or in a way that harms Alberta.

That motion would empower cabinet to amend laws or regulations to resist perceived federal incursions into provincial jurisdiction, and could require other provincially controlled public bodies to also disregard the offending federal law.

At a news conference Tuesday, Justice Minister Tyler Shandro acknowledged that once empowered by the act, cabinet's decision to change a law would not have to return to the legislature for a vote — the kind of power that is usually granted to governments temporarily during emergencies.

However, the province's justice ministry issued a clarification on Wednesday saying any proposed legal changes made by cabinet must first be included in a resolution approved by the legislature.

University of Alberta law Prof. Eric Adams said it's not that simple. The bill wanders into uncharted territory in Canadian law, and could be open to interpretation by courts, he said.

Legislatures don't usually make laws by passing a motion, he said. A motion comes with a lesser degree of public scrutiny and debate than introducing, debating and voting on legislation, he said.

"The idea that the democratic legitimacy of whatever the cabinet does can be traced back to and authorized by a simple vote on a motion is fundamentally flawed reasoning," Adams said in an interview.

Notley said it's clear the bill isn't ready, and the government should withdraw it before it causes economic damage. She says even talk of the legislation during the nearly-five month UCP leadership campaign spooked investors.

Also defending the act Wednesday were three cabinet ministers who panned the idea during this summer's United Conservative Party leadership race.