Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is rejecting┬аsuggestions she made a mistake when she introduced a bill that would┬аgive her cabinet sweeping powers to rewrite laws outside the┬аlegislative process.
Smith says the changes being made to her Sovereignty Act┬аreversing that authority simply reflect the normal process of honing┬аand clarifying legislation.
“The Sovereignty Act wasn’t perfect in its wording. That’s why┬аit’s being amended,” Smith told reporters Tuesday. “There┬аare a┬аcouple of clarifications that we needed to make.
“I just look at this as part of the process. You introduce bills┬аwith three readings for a reason.”
Smith has been widely criticized for introducing those unchecked┬аpowers in her Sovereignty Act as part of a broader plan┬аto fight┬аwhat she deems federal intrusion in areas of provincial┬аresponsibility.
After accusations last week that the bill gave her cabinet those powers,┬аSmith reversed course on the weekend and said there┬аwould be┬аamendments to fix it.
Her comments echoed those made by Justice Minister Tyler Shandro┬аon Monday, when he told reporters: “I’m not going┬аto characterize┬аit as a mistake.”
Neither Smith nor Shandro have explained how the powers ended up┬аin the bill if they were not supposed to be there.
Shandro pushed back Monday on reporters, who suggested he and the┬аother members of Smith’s United Conservative┬аgovernment didn’t┬аunderstand that the bill contained the sweeping powers provision.
“Of course, the bill was understood,” said Shandro.
Asked if he was fine with the way the original bill was worded,┬аShandro, a lawyer, responded: “I’ve given legal advice to [cabinet]┬аabout what the options are and what the advantages and disadvantages┬аare for the various different decision points.”
“I’m one member of [cabinet] that votes on it,” he said. “I’m┬аnot going to speak specifically about one particular decision point┬аand what my advice was on that. I think that would be breaching cabinet confidentiality.”
Opposition wants to see legal advice
The Opposition NDP says Smith either got caught trying to make an┬аend-run power grab or is so incompetent she┬аintroduced an┬аauthoritarian bill without knowing she was doing it.
On Tuesday, NDP justice critic Irfan Sabir called for cabinet to┬аwaive confidentiality for Shandro so he could explain to┬аAlbertans┬аwhat legal advice he delivered.
“If the government wants to have a shred of credibility left,┬аthey should release the legal advice they received,” Sabir said┬аin┬аa statement.
“All of this uncertainty is harming our reputation and our┬аeconomic future.”
The bill is in second reading. The next stage, committee of the┬аwhole, is when the bill is to be debated in greater detail,┬аand that┬аis when amendments are expected.
On Monday, UCP caucus members said they would forward two┬аamendments.
The first change would clarify that any changes cabinet makes to┬аlaws under the Sovereignty Act can’t be done in secret,┬аbut must┬аinstead come back to the house for the normal process of debate and┬аapproval.
The caucus also voted to propose an amendment to spell out when┬аcabinet can take action.
Under the bill, cabinet has wide latitude to respond to whatever┬аfederal law policy or program it deems harmful to┬аAlberta’s┬аinterests.
With the amendment, harm would be defined as anything a majority┬аof the legislature deems to be an unconstitutional┬аfederal intrusion┬аin provincial areas of responsibility.
Caucus whip Brad Rutherford said the changes reflect concerns┬аmembers heard from constituents.
Smith said she welcomes the amendments.
The bill has been criticized by political scientists and legal┬аexperts as constitutionally questionable and a threat to the┬аchecks┬аand balances of democracy.
Indigenous leaders have come out against it, saying it tramples┬аon treaty rights. Business groups, including the Calgary┬аChamber of┬аCommerce, warn the legal uncertainty surrounding the bill is not┬аgood for investment.
There is also concern that the legislature is usurping the role┬аof the courts by deciding on its own under the bill what is┬аconstitutional and what is not.
