The government of the Prime Minister of Alberta, Danielle Smith, says he is planning to introduce legislation that allows him to ignore the international agreements signed by Ottawa.
The future legislation is observed in a letter of mandate that Smith issued this week to the Government’s Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, to which the Premier is directed.
The letter says it is about protecting the “Alberta authority.” In a statement, Smith’s office added that it is also a due process problem.
Sam Blacktt, Smith press secretary, said that the federal government is not required to consult the provinces when signing international agreements, even if those agreements include commitments that are under the provincial jurisdiction, such as medical care.
“Alberta seeks to clarify that the international agreements concluded by the federal government with issues that fall within the provincial jurisdiction are only binding and enforceable in Alberta if they are transmitted by law under provincial legislation,” he said.
Blacktt did not provide examples of agreements that worried the Smith government, but said the Pandemic Agreement of the World Health Organization ratified earlier this year would be an example of something for which Alberta has authority over its potential impact on medical care.
A mandate letter from Alberta Prime Minister Danielle Smith addresses the provincial Minister of Jobs to increase provincial control over immigration. As Travis Mcewan reports, it is not clear how it can be achieved.
The pandemic agreement, in a nutshell, will make the signatories work together to “prevent, prepare and respond to pandemics.”
Blacktt said Alberta’s legislation would be similar to a long -standing legislative framework in Quebec.
The constitutional law professor at the University of Alberta, Eric Adams, said Friday that it is not clear what Alberta is looking for through the legislation, given the Constitution, it already gives the provinces some control over the implementation agreements involving areas of provincial jurisdiction.
“For a long time, the law has been stable in this area and divides authority along some fairly clear lines,” he said, added that the federal government can implement terms of international agreements on issues on which it has jurisdiction, while the provinces can choose to legislate those agreements if they affect their jurisdiction.
“I am not sure what provincial legislation I would add to those existing constitutional rules and I suppose we will have to wait and see.”
Adams said the Canada powers division means that implementing the terms of international agreements is already a bit “uncomfortable.”
“The fact that the federal government has signed a treaty does not necessarily mean that they can support the promise of these subjects as a legislative issue because some of those problems could be in the provincial jurisdiction.”
He said this means that the federal government can obtain preventive support from the provinces before Canada firm international treaties or seek that support through subsequent negotiations.
“The other option is to see which provinces occupy the subject and simply accept the reality that some provinces could not.”
Adams said that another complication in the game is that there are some subjects where there are superimposed jurisdictional powers between Ottawa and the provinces, citing medical care and the environment as examples.
That “messy reality” does not mean that Ottawa can order the provinces to fulfill the international commitments that the federal government does, he said.
“Canada can enter those treaties, but you always have to fall into the regular division of powers on whether these promises are implemented or not.”
Blacktt did not say when the government plans to cover the legislation.
The legislature will resume sitting next month.
