Chaos Theory

Despite spending a lot of my time thinking about Alberta politics, I don’t really understand chaos theory.

But Wikipedia tells me that one of the key principles is that “Chaos is possible because systems are extremely sensitive to initial conditions.” Or, the flapping of a butterfly’s wings over the Amazon could affect the weather in China.

I thought about the butterfly effect when I read Don’ Braid’s most recent column in the Herald. Someone from the Premier’s office went out of their way to tell Braid that they’re “very concerned” about Justice Russell Brown being on leave from the Supreme Court when it hears a case next week on the question of whether the Impact Assessment Act (called the ‘no more pipelines law’ by critics) is constitutional.

It’s possible that a barfight at a fancy Arizona hotel (butterfly over the Amazon) might have significant consequences for the Canadian federation (the weather in China).

Braid reports that folks in the Premier’s office are concerned about Brown being on leave because he’s the most reliable supporter of provincial rights on the Supreme Court, and the case is focused on the question of whether the federal legislation intrudes on provinces’ constitutionally-guaranteed authority over natural resources. (According to the Alberta Court of Appeal, the legislation “has taken a wrecking ball to the constitutional right of the citizens of Alberta and Saskatchewan and other provinces to have their 92A natural resources developed for their benefit.)

So why would the Premier’s office try to make sure their concerns were known in advance of the province’s day in court? Possibly as a pre-emptive strategy to save face if they lose. Possibly to communicate indirectly to the Court in the hope that Brown would be allowed to participate in the decision, if he still sits on the court.

But there’s a third possibility, and the one that troubles me, like a cyclone over China.

The Free Alberta Strategy - the document co-authored by senior advisor to the Premier Rob Anderson - questions the legitimacy of Canadian court rulings that go against Alberta’s interests: “We call on the Government of Alberta to place the federal government and its federal courts on notice that it will no longer recognize their claimed authority over provincial areas of constitutional sovereignty.”

Now it’s entirely possible that a Supreme Court ruling that the Impact Assessment Act is constitutional will lead to all sorts of anger in Alberta, including questioning the legitimacy of Canadian courts. But having the Premier’s office raise the internal court matter with a columnist in advance of the hearing has me wondering about whether there’s a strategy in place to claim further illegitimacy of the eventual ruling, on the grounds that one of the judges was excluded.

A lot of the important rulings that shaped Canadian federalism had to do with booze - we were sorting out how the federation would operate during the temperance era, after all. But it would certainly be something if that tradition continued and a boozy bar fight in Arizona led to some kind of constitutional crisis, with the government of Alberta rejecting the legitimacy of a Canadian court ruling.