Alberta Sovereignty Act Bill 1 passes first reading

On October 11, 2022, Danielle Smith, a conservative female politician born in the 1970s, was elected Premier of Alberta. As soon as the new official took office, Smith proposed the Alberta “Bill №1”: the Alberta Sovereignty Act within a united Canada. “Bill №1” passed the first reading on November 29, entered the second reading on November 30, and was still in the process of revision during the second reading as of the writing of the article. When Smith ran for premier, she included Alberta self-government in her campaign platform.

As early as September 28, 2021, former Alberta MP Rob Anderson, University of Calgary Politics Professor Barry Cooper, and constitutional lawyer Derek From jointly published the initiative “Strategy for the Liberation of Alberta”, promoting on various occasions “A strong, free and sovereign Alberta in Canada”. The initiative says it aims to oppose Ottawa’s domineering control of Alberta. The initiative stated that Ottawa’s practice of plundering Alberta’s resources and wealth violates Alberta’s economic interests, hinders Alberta’s economic prosperity, and has become intolerable. It said that Ottawa has bullied Alberta too much and has directly threatened the viability and threat of Alberta’s economy. to the core liberties of the people of Alberta. The first step of the strategy to liberate Alberta is to pass the Alberta Sovereignty Act; the second step is to effectively stop Ottawa’s inter-provincial equality transfer payment from transferring Alberta’s wealth to other provinces; the third step is to withdraw from all Federal projects that belong provincial jurisdictional powers: include health, education, resource development, environmental protection, and property rights; the fourth step is to return Alberta’s sovereignty over international trade negotiations and prevent Ottawa from regulating Alberta’s international trade.

Albert Smith’s “Bill №1” announced that the bill is to maintain the constitution of the separation of powers between the federal government and the provincial government, and to protect Alberta’s sovereignty from violations by federal legislation. The bill would establish a legal framework to protect Alberta from the negative impact of federal legislation on Alberta. This bill gives Alberta a legal basis to resist Ottawa’s unconstitutional legislation that harms the interests of the people of Alberta and the economic prosperity of Alberta and protects Alberta’s jurisdiction over arms, resources, energy, and COVID measures. Alberta’s “Bill №1” will not allow Alberta to violate the Canadian Constitution, will not allow Alberta to separate from Canada, will not allow the Alberta Cabinet to issue unconstitutional orders, and will not allow the Alberta Cabinet to issue orders to individuals and companies in defiance of the federal government laws.

But there are also some experts and scholars who believe that Alberta's “ Bill №1” is unconstitutional. Canada is different from the United States. The United States has a written constitution, while Canada does not. Canada has only a series of historical constitutional documents. Generally speaking, the Canadian Constitution mainly refers to the British North American Plan in 1867 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, and these two constitutional documents refer to other legal documents in history. The legal documents of the common law are like this. A legal document will refer to other legal documents, and other legal documents cited will refer to other legal documents, resulting in the Canadian Constitution as a series of intricate legal collections of legal documents. It is impossible to interpret a legal document for commoners. Most people forget the first part while reading later parts of the legal document, or the reason why they started to track while tracking the references of the references. In short, even if you have read all the contents of a legal document, you cannot fully grasp the terms stipulated in this legal document. Being a lawyer is a very professional profession. For the same legal provisions, different lawyers have different interpretations, and these interpretations often refer to the precedent cases of the Supreme Court, and this Supreme Court used to be in London, England. Only after 1982 did Canada have its own Supreme Court. If a lawyer finds a precedent case that can refute the other party, then the lawyer’s interpretation is approved by the judge. In short, the public can only rely on the authority of experts to explain whether Alberta’s “Bill №1” is unconstitutional.

For example, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is one of Canada’s constitutional documents. Section 25 of Canada’s Rights and Freedoms Act 1982 guarantees the land rights reserved to Aboriginal people by the 1763 Royal Declaration. Therefore, there are many Indian reservations scattered in Canada now, which are protected by the Royal proclamation more than 200 years ago. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 became known as the Indian Magna Carta or the Indian Bill of Rights. In 2022, the Canadian Parliament has a heated debate on the Freedom Convoy Protest. Some people who support the Convoy believe that the police have over-enforced the law and compared it with the police not arresting the aboriginal demonstrations for obstructing traffic. However, don’t forget that the obstruction of traffic by the aboriginal parade is protected by the 1763 Royal Proclamation. Many aboriginal territories protected by the Royal Proclamation back then have been violated today, and the aborigines blocking traffic through their reserved land is really unconstitutional. In 1763, the Royal Proclamation originally delineated the area that allowed European colonists to colonize only a small piece of the Atlantic coast.

Another example is the 1774 Quebec Act (Quebec Act), which is also a Canadian constitutional document, which is the constitution of Quebecers. After the Anglo-French War, according to the Treaty of Versailles, French North America was handed to Britain and became British North America. Britain defeated France in Europe, however, the British army in North America did not defeat the army of French North America. To maintain social order, The Quebec Act preserved many of the laws of the French colonies, such as the Catholic Church’s power to govern health and education. Quebec’s quiet revolution in the 1960s turned education and health care power to the provincial government. However, according to the Quebec Act, our Education committee is divided into two, one is the Catholic Education Committee and the other is the Public Education Committee. The Catholic Church still holds part of the educational power. That’s why the Pope is coming to Canada to apologize for the massacre of Aboriginal children in the boarding schools because at that time educational authority belonged to the Catholic Church. Quebec’s civil code is based on civil law, while Ontario’s civil code is based on common law. Quebec has its own laws. Quebec also has jurisdiction over border entry and immigration, which is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Entering Quebec from abroad, you should find the Quebec office, not the Canadian consulate and embassy ??unless there is no Quebec office in those areas and the Canadian consulate will do it for you.

There is also the Constitution Act of 1791 which is also the constitutional document of Canada. During the American Revolutionary War, many royalists were unwilling to betray the Emperor and did not support American independence, so they immigrated to Canada. However, Canada at that time followed the French civil law system, that is, the civil law system retained by the 1774 Quebec Act. They were at a loss, so there was the 1791 Constitution Act. Let Upper Canada, now Ontario, use British Common Law.

Another important constitutional document is the 1840 Act of Union. The Act of Union in 1840 established the basic democratic framework of today’s Canadian constitutional monarchy, that is, sovereignty belongs to the monarch, but the government belongs to the people. The Canadian government is a government that is elected by the people and is responsible for the people, not for the monarch.

Why do the western provinces think the Canadian federal government is unfair? Legally speaking, the provinces of Canada are not equal. Canada has three territories that are directly under the federal government and ten provinces. Among them, the three provinces of Albert, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba in the west are different from the other seven provinces. The other seven provinces were originally British North American dominions. They first obtained self-government power from the suzerain country, Britain, and then joined the Canadian Confederation one after another, rendering part of their power to the federal government. The three western provinces are different. The three western provinces were originally the territory of fur resources monopolized by the Bay Company. This area is called Rupert territory. On December 1, 1869, the Bay Company sold the Rupert Territory to Canada, and the Rupert Territory became a territory under the power of the federal government of Canada. In 1870, the Canadian federal government established the province of Manitoba in this area, and in 1905, it established the provinces of Saskatchewan and Albert. That is, the three western provinces did not render their powers to the federal government. The federal government of Canada delegated federal powers to the three western provinces. Canada paid for the purchase of the Rupert territory. According to the common law, the resources on this land belong to the federal government and not to the provincial government. The management of these resources by the provincial governments of the three western provinces is delegated to them by the federal government. The Liberation Alberta Initiative and Alberta’s “Bill №1” using Alberta resources to challenge the federal government is not in line with the common law. The three western provinces are not legally qualified to negotiate jurisdiction with the federal government because their jurisdiction is delegated by the federal government, not their intrinsic power.

The Alberta Sovereignty Act wants international trade powers from the federal government, which the federal government does not have. Canadian export controls are made and enforced by Washington. It is up to Washington to decide which country Canada can trade with, not Ottawa. Canada has effectively lost its sovereignty over international trade. Even if Alberta becomes independent, it will be difficult to get rid of the long-arm jurisdiction of the United States. What’s more frightening is that Alberta is likely to become a puppet government of the United States, and dividing Canada, and British Columbia will be easily annexed. For example, the oil pipelines in Alberta cannot pass through British Columbia, and it will be difficult to pass through British Columbia after obtaining trade sovereignty. The oil pipeline in Alberta may pass through Alaska in the United States, and the existing oil pipelines in Alberta are already connected to the United States. As a result, the oil pipelines from south to north split Canada into two parts of east and west. For the national interests of the United States, Alberta is in danger of being annexed. Alberta claims resource sovereignty. If it succeeds, it is likely to make wedding clothes for others. At that time, Alberta’s resources will be more easily controlled by the United States. At that time, Washington’s control over Albert may be more brutal than Ottawa’s current control over Alberta.

The most important symbol of sovereignty is the armed forces, namely the police and the army. Alberta does not have its own provincial police, the RCMP police the province. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army was not deployed to subside the riots in Hong Kong in 2019, the Hong Kong police quelled the riots. The law is enforced internally by the police and externally by the army. Alberta cannot talk about sovereignty without the police and army. After the passage of the Alberta Sovereignty Act, Alberta will establish the Alberta Police to replace the RCMP. This is an inevitable step in establishing Alberta’s own sovereignty.

There is no provincial police in Alberta, but there are municipal police, that is, each city has its own police. Therefore, Alberta can boycott federal legislation by not cooperating. If federal law prohibits drug trafficking, for example, the municipal police may not enforce it. If they see drug trafficking, they will not arrest them, that is, passively resist federal law. However, passive boycott obviously fails to achieve the political goals of the Liberation Ontario Strategy Initiative and the Alberta №1 Bill.

According to the 1763 Royal Proclamation, Aboriginal people can claim the interest of the resource of Alberta. Under Canada’s 1869 contract to purchase Rupert Territory, the federal government can claim an interest in Alberta's resources. As long as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can prohibit Alberta from establishing a provincial army and provincial police, there will be no possibility of independence for Alberta.