Alberta fighting with Ottawa is as Albertan as an oil derrick, but if changes to laws are needed it should be done where Albertans can see it - not behind closed doors.
Apart from Lougheed or Klein I think there was another premier that was able to successfully deal with Ottawa and even get a pipeline built?
Dave, I saw the headline and I absolutely couldn't stop myself: I had to answer your question even before I read the piece. Oh, rest assured that I will read it and, perhaps, just perhaps comment again, but first to your question.
You ask why Smith could not operate like Lougheed or Klein and it is a reasonable question, just as the answer is entirely reasonable. The answer is her interlocutor, one J. Trudeau.
Like his father, Junior has disdain for Alberta; Hell, he has disdain for anyone or anywhere outside of Quebec and (perhaps) Ontario. Like his father, Junior wants to appropriate to the federal fisque Alberta's oil wealth. Like his father, Junior is terrifically arrogant. So far, pretty much the same, no?
The difference this time is Junior has become an acolyte of the Church of Green and that means that he doesn't simply want to tax us to death and line the federal fisque but, more importantly, he wants to cancel the resource industry and any other industry that uses fossil fuels. Oh, and, of course, as one of the high priests of the Church of Green he doesn't need to worry about his fossil footprint, sending untold gazillions of tonnes into the air to go to Scotland (last year), Egypt (this year) for a conference that could have been held by Zoom. 300 Canadian delegates - really! But then, what is sauce for the gander is most definitely not sauce for the goose.
Lougheed and Klein had to fight on a federal - provincial basis but with Junior, he has chosen to fight on the basis of laying total waste to Alberta.
You might, yourself, be an adherent to the Church of Green and, if so, I do not mean to offend you or your fellow adherents. The problem here is that Junior is not willing to deal openly and honestly. He certainly isn't an honest fellow: you can look at his record for dissembling in ever so many situations and circumstances; I could list ever so many examples but you either know of them and agree with me or you give him a pass.
So, that is why the change in approach.
Now, on to reading further than the headline. As always, thank you for the effort that you put in to this publication.
" Smith’s bill appears to give the provincial cabinet the unilateral power to change provincial legislation to counter federal legislation it deems somehow “harmful” to Alberta. This would take place after a motion passed the Alberta legislature declaring the federal law unconstitutional or harmful. It would make politicians, not the courts, the arbiter of what was or was not constitutional. Or would it?
A day after introducing it, she offered a clarification saying the cabinet would not unilaterally amend legislation without the amendments first being “authorized” by the legislative assembly." from an article one of my directors at the federation is commenting on Ken. So just what is it you think ordinary Albertans do not understand that YOU somehow are an expert on? WTF did I say I don't want laws, rules, ideas etc changing in Alberta. I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that I don't want ANYTHING changing unless the people vote to have it changed and have proper notification and meaningful consultation, because after all, it is OUR Province of Alberta and since we are the ones footing the invoices/bills/ costs/fees/ muncipal, provincial and federal taxes, then we should be the ones changing the laws, rules, ideas etc and not some silly politician that could not even win her own riding seat Ken!
Kat, what "they" are getting at buffaloed me at first because I have read the proposed SA and nowhere does it say that Cabinet can make laws behind closed doors. So.... I thought about it. What they are claiming is just plain wrong but "they" really don't care.
Okay, sorry but you will have to work with me to understand how government works here. Governments pass laws in the Legislatures, Parliament, etc. Then there are rules called Regulations that are issued for every - I do mean EVERY - piece of legislation that specifies how the law is to work.
I am a retired accountant so I had to deal with the Income Tax Act for some (too many!!) decades. Clearly, the government passed laws each year to change the Income Tax Act in various ways, some benign, some odious, some in between. For example, depreciation (in tax terms it is called capital cost allowance, or CCA) is very specifically allowed in the Income Tax Act but how much can we depreciate something? Turn to the Regulations. A desk is allowed to be depreciated at twenty per cent but some particular pollution control equipment might (it changes frequently) be allowed to be depreciated at fifty per cent. The point of the depreciation rates is to a) recognize that assets do decline in value and need to be replaced; and b) to try to encourage certain types of industries that the government wants to encourage (say, pollution control). and so forth. Those types of rates are, as noted, in the Regulations.
The Regulations are NEVER passed by Parliament, Legislatures, etc. NEVER. They are prepared by the bureaucracy and then approved by the Governor General in Council (federal) or the Lieutenant Governor in Council (provincial). Those are the legal names but they really mean the Cabinet. So, the Cabinet approves all the Regulations, not the Legislature.
With me so far? Okay, we are part way to the finish line.
The government is a big organization and it has fleets of lawyers and similar people who read laws passed by the Legislature and they prepare the Regulations. Those Regs are meant to put the details on how the laws work. The bureaucracy prepares the Regs and then the Lieutenant Governor in Council approves the Regs and the Regs are published in the Alberta Gazette, a government way of making the rules (i.e. the Regs) clear to all of us.
So, the Leg passes the laws but the bureaucracy prepares the Regs and the Cabinet (remember, the Cabinet is the Lieutenant Governor in Council) approves the Regs and the Regs are published in the Alberta Gazette.
So, now, back to your question. What the Sovereignty Act does is it allows the Leg to pass a motion saying we don't like something. Then, the bureaucracy does what it always does, it prepares Regs, in this case they say something like, in the case of law X [i.e. what was the subject of the motion in the Leg] we amend the Regs we previously issued and we don't want our civil servants to participate with the feds on doing whatever it might be. The feds are still quite legally entitle to use their own civil servants but Alberta will not pay it's own civil service to accomplish the federal task in question.
So, no laws have been broken and all Alberta has done is to tell the feds that if they want whatever then they can do it themselves but we (Alberta) are not doing it for you. Be aware: THIS IS ALL COMPLETELY LEGAL AND HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
What "they" are complaining about is that Alberta will amend the Regs that it issued previously in precisely the same way that they were previously issued.
In the last few years, BC and Ontario decided to not prosecute some crimes under the Criminal Code of Canada involving marijuana. They told the police in their provinces that they (the police) should not lay legal charges in some instances. That was legal. The two provinces did not take those directions to their respective Legislatures, they simply administratively told the police what not to do.
Other provinces have done this in past years. What is new is that under the SA the Leg will pass a motion that makes public what the Cabinet will be doing. So, Alberta will be MORE democratic about it's beefs with the feds than the other provinces.
And "they" - the media, etc., etc. - are complaining about the lack of democracy. Hypocrites!
IIt is an act, that changes laws. I did not say I do not want laws to change. I do not want laws or acts or ideas or changes that are not the will of the people. I did not vote for Ms. Smith. Some one in southern Alberta gave up their seat so that Danielle could be an interium Premier. That is all she is for now. We will not know for sure until the spring who will be at the helm. Until then, she ( Ms. Smith) may take all the money thrown at her by the petroleum industry and pretend that she has the power to do anything she wants, muncipally, provincially, and federally. A fence post could do the same. No one respects a 'leader' that does not follow the will of the people! If the laws are in place to do what Ms. Smith has proposed, then why was the first act she is trying to push down everyone's throad the one she and her 'followers' proposed on the first day of legislation? Why write 12 pages of an act that she does not need, according to you? This is a bunch of baloney, it is nothing more than an attempt to pretend she differs from previous Premiers and she may fool you. She does NOT fool me.