LET THE LEGAL FUN BEGIN — Ottawa has sovereignty on the mind after Alberta Premier DANIELLE SMITH tabled her long-awaited sovereignty act. Here's a primer on what's in the first bill of the Smith era . One of the head-turning planks in the legislation tabled Tuesday appeared to give Cabinet extraordinary powers to rewrite laws. The government insists that is not the case , but constitutional law expert EMMETT MACFARLANE still insists Smith has tabled "the most unconstitutional bill in Canada's modern history." — Trudeau's day-after reaction: "We know that the exceptional powers that the premier is choosing to give the Alberta government in bypassing the Alberta legislature is causing a lot of eyebrows to raise in Alberta, and we’re going to see how this plays out. I’m not going to take anything off the table, but I’m also not looking for a fight." That's a pretty coy PM. His intergovernmental affairs minister, DOMINIC LEBLANC, was guarded. "We intend to read it, to study it, that's for sure," he told reporters. "I already had a preliminary legal opinion this morning." For now, Alberta will do what Alberta will do, he said. "We think it’s not particularly constructive to try and peer around every corner and imagine what the scenario might be." We disagree. We recently called up University of Alberta law prof ERIC ADAMS. He talked us through the potential path for the sovereignty act. Here's how it might play out. — So many stakeholders: Smith has already cleared crucial hurdles: a caucus and Cabinet, and a whack of taxpayer-funded lawyers who would've offered constructive criticism on the language of the bill. — What's next: Lieutenant-Governor SALMA LAKHANI could theoretically use reserve powers to prevent the bill's passage into law — and even send it to Governor General MARY SIMON for advice. But that's extremely unlikely. Once the bill is law, Ottawa could preemptively ask the Supreme Court for a reference — an aggressive move that would inflame tensions. Adams says that's also unlikely. The province could request its own reference from Alberta's court of appeal. A friendly ruling could bolster its case for constitutionality. Then there's the third option: an individual or coalition of public-interest groups could mount a legal challenge. Think unions and civil liberties groups. — The key question: Would judges wait until the law's powers are deployed before hearing the case? Every challenge that gets heard starts at the Court of King's Bench. That first ruling can be appealed at the provincial court of appeal. And that ruling can be appealed at the Supreme Court. (Remember the fractious fed-prov carbon tax fight ? Something like that.) — How long will this all take? A court might fast-track the challenge, but there's a but. "The judicial process remains slow, deliberate and time intensive," says Adams. "In one sense, justice is slow, and that can be a hindrance, but in another sense, it's actually a key and important attribute of the institution." Translation: Settle in for a long ride.
| 
