SOFTENING BILL 1 WON'T KILL THE DEBATE

More controversy continues to swirl around the sovereignty act

The UCP is blunting the sharp edges of the sovereignty act.

It will still be one tough Alberta law, but amendments from the UCP caucus will eliminate two massive problems with the original Bill 1 — the use of a dictatorial “Henry VIII” clause, and the ability to trigger anti-ottawa moves over anything perceived as a political slight.

If passed, these will be significant and sensible changes that make the bill constitutionally acceptable and (with doubts lingering) even workable.

That won't stop the raging debate over whether such a bill is necessary at all. On Wednesday, members of the Assembly of First Nations called for the act to be withdrawn, not simply amended.

Bearspaw Nation Chief Darcy Dixon said, “we see it as a disguised attempt to disregard treaty and as a way to gain unlawful access to our land without restriction.”

The bill states that it can't be construed as “abrogating or derogating from any existing treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples.”

Opposition will persist. People have every right to ask what Bill 1 means for their lives and their province. First Nations are naturally suspicious of any tinkering with their Crown relationship.

Hours after the amendments were tabled, an Angus Reid Institute poll came out showing that Premier Danielle Smith has about 43 per cent public support, with that almost evenly divided between strong and moderate backing.

Her disapproval count is 54 per cent, with fully 44 per cent strongly opposed.

For a new premier, that's not a great spot to be in.

But the poll was done from Nov. 28 to Dec. 3. The questions were being asked for three full days after the bill was dropped and the national uproar began.

The retreat to common sense might now help the premier's approval rating. Some even wonder if the whole show was a setup — introduce an outrageous bill, catch the nation's attention, then back up somewhat after branding “Alberta sovereignty” indelibly on the nation.

Government sources hotly deny this. There was some confusion and misunderstanding in the complex Justice Department drafting, they say. Errors were made and they're being corrected.

The first mistake was language that clearly said Smith and her cabinet can write new laws and change existing ones.

Every Canadian lawmaker — including the premier — knows this is exclusive business of the legislature.

Every bill must be introduced, debated, read and voted on three times by elected members.

Cabinet — the executive authority — has plenty of power over bills that come into the house, but no right whatever to change or proclaim them. This is a fundamental principle of our democracy.

King Henry VIII, who beheaded two of his six wives, is eternally linked to the executive power grab. It's always a temptation to governments.

The federal government has used the trick in a limited way. When Justin Trudeau's Liberals did that, Alberta was quick to shout angry disapproval.

In the new sovereignty act version, all reference to cabinet power over law or statute is removed. Amendments clarify that cabinet can only change regulations that stem from laws, not the laws themselves.

“Regulation” is newly and carefully defined as any rule, tariff, fee or other measure enabled by a law.

I think we can send Henry VIII back to his well-earned crypt, even though some very angry Albertans were quite pleased with his reappearance.

They feel Ottawa pulls so many dirty constitutional tricks that almost any retribution is justified. But most Albertans, I think, expect fair behaviour from their government.

The second amendment is even more important. It now defines “harm” as a federal action that “affects or interferes with an area of provincial legislative jurisdiction under the Constitution of Canada.” Action could also be taken if a federal move interferes with rights “of one or more Albertans” under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That's an unwelcome aftertaste of the pandemic culture wars. If the UCP wants to pursue every potential Covid-induced violation of Charter rights, it could start by suing itself.