Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

"[8][9] A proposed use of the act would be triggered when a member of the Executive Council tables a motion in the Legislative Assembly identifying a specific federal law or policy that may be considered to be unconstitutional, in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or harmful to Albertans.

[6] After a Legislative Assembly debate on the merits of the resolution, all members would take part in a free vote on the "impugned law, ruling or regulatory decision".

[10][12] Treaty 6, 7, and 8 chiefs immediately stated their opposition to the act through news conferences and in public statements and criticized the government for not consulting with them.

It was described by it its authors as a joint initiative with the Alberta Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in 2018 by Peter McCaffrey, who also is its President.

[10][22] In a September 2022 National Post interview, Cooper clarified that the act itself was deliberately "unconstitutional" to put the federal government on notice that Alberta would "no longer recognize their claimed authority over provincial areas of constitutional sovereignty.

[26][10] The act, also known as Bill 1, would give the province the authority to "refuse to enforce any federal law or policy that attacks Alberta's interest or our provincial rights.

[28] Historically, conflicts concerning jurisdiction, finances, culture, or perceived favouritism have occurred between provinces and each other, and with the federal government.

[8] In the bill's third reading just before it was passed in the legislature, Premier Smith explained the justification for the "reset" in the provincial-federal relationship: "It's not like Ottawa is a national government.

Again, several NDP MLAs attempted to filibuster passage of third reading, with Marie Renaud moving another reasoned amendment, which was defeated in a voice vote.

[43] The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act is intended to prevent instances of alleged overreach by the federal government.

[45] During her United Conservative Party leadership campaign, Smith listed a number of federal policies that may be unconstitutional or may be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[10] Another example would be to compel Alberta's credit unions to not comply with any future injunction of the Emergencies Act to freeze protesters' accounts.

[10] The rationale for the act is that Alberta in particular is considered unfairly treated by the rest of Canada, due to programs like the equalization payments that fund provinces with lower GDPs and environmental initiatives like the Northern Gateway Pipeline cancellation.

Specific areas of concern brought forward by Danielle Smith include private property, natural resources, agriculture, firearms, regulation of the economy, health, education, and other social programs.

[6] University of Calgary law professors, Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes note that the act has ten "operative sections".

[12] The act compels "provincial entities" to follow directives issued by Executive Council, which may include defying or ignoring federal laws deemed to harm Alberta, be unconstitutional or to be in violation of the Charter.

Furthermore, section 1(e)(iv) includes a broad definition of entities that receive grant funding from the province of Alberta to provide a public service.

[17] A proposed application of the act can be triggered with a motion introduced in the legislative assembly by the premier or any minister identifying a specific federal policy or regulation which is deemed by them to be unconstitutional, contrary to the Charter or "harmful" to Albertans.

[44] As originally introduced to the legislature, once the resolution was passed, Bill 1 would grant the cabinet unilateral powers to change laws, and/or enact measures,[44][51] which could include giving specific directives to "provincial entities".

[15] Notley said that there are good arguments for Alberta to achieve greater control of its own "economic destiny" but Bill 1 was "completely and entirely disconnected from that object.

"[15] Chiefs representing Treaty 6, 7, and 8 publicly opposed the proposed legislation at a November 18 news conference held in Edmonton.

[10] Law professors, Olszynski and Bankes identified three potential constitutional challenges to the Bill, including both the separation and the division of powers, as well as the "impermissible delegation of legislative authority"—the so-called Henry VIII clause.

[64] The prime minister responded to concerns by delegates at the assembly that the act and Saskatchewan's Bill 88 were "shutting out Indigenous voices".

[64] A December 25 New York Times article said that the act "radically circumscribes federal authority, advancing the agenda of the province's far-right secessionist movement.