Three years after Alberta passed the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, tensions are rising between provincial governments and Ottawa over a federal gun buyback program. The act aims to affirm that provinces are not obligated to enforce federal laws and to create a framework for resisting federal policies deemed unconstitutional or harmful to provincial rights.

Since the act's introduction, Alberta has taken significant steps to assert its autonomy, including the enactment of its own Firearms Act. Similar actions have been observed in Saskatchewan, which, along with Alberta, is now at the forefront of opposition to the federal gun buyback initiative. This program, proposed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, aims to compensate legal firearm owners who surrender recently prohibited weapons.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree announced last week that the gun buyback program would be implemented nationally soon. While some provinces have merely declined to cooperate, Alberta and Saskatchewan have actively sought to obstruct federal enforcement. Premier Scott Moe of Saskatchewan stated on a local radio show, "You won’t have (guns) taken in Saskatchewan, because you would need a provincial license to go out and gather up guns. And that is currently an unfunded department."

Alberta made headlines in December 2022 by announcing it would take over prosecutions under the federal Firearms Act, aiming to limit enforcement actions against firearm owners. In March 2023, Alberta introduced its own Firearms Act, which could effectively prevent federal agents from seizing firearms within the province. Saskatchewan has pursued similar legislative measures.

The ongoing conflict raises questions about the balance of power in Canada’s criminal justice system. The federal government has the authority to define criminal offenses, but the enforcement of those laws is a contentious issue, as it falls under provincial jurisdiction. Historically, provinces had the discretion to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses until the federal government began delegating enforcement powers in the 1980s.

In a 1983 Supreme Court decision, a majority ruled that the federal government could enforce criminal law, but dissenting Justice Brian Dickson argued that only provinces hold that authority under the Constitution. This dissent continues to be referenced in current debates about provincial enforcement powers. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan's recent firearms legislation reflects this dissenting view, asserting that provincial authority can exist independently of federal delegation.

Premier Moe has asserted that the Saskatchewan Firearms Act effectively blocks federal enforcement regarding firearms. Additionally, Saskatchewan has introduced legislation to protect gun owners from financial liability due to federal prohibitions and to ensure fair compensation for those affected.

Alberta has also proposed a Sovereignty Act motion related to firearms, further escalating the situation. Other provinces, including Quebec, have taken similar stances on various issues, challenging federal authority.

The ongoing debate over federal versus provincial enforcement of criminal law could lead to significant legal confrontations. If the federal government does not secure cooperation from the provinces, it may find itself on the defensive. As Alberta and Saskatchewan appear to be inviting legal challenges, the outcome remains uncertain. The federal government may choose to negotiate, as it has in past disputes with Quebec, potentially leading to a political resolution. The future of this conflict will unfold in the coming months as both sides navigate their constitutional rights and responsibilities.