RED DEER, Alta.—Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says her government’s proposed changes to the provincial Bill of Rights are still open for feedback to allow further changes.
Speaking at the UCP annual general meeting on Nov. 1, Smith noted that amending the Bill was something the membership asked for during last year’s convention, and that further changes to her proposed legislation to amend the Bill are still possible depending on the debate at this year’s convention.
“We did come through with the direction we got from members last year, with a Bill of Rights amendment that’s going to entrench rights for firearms owners, make sure that we’re giving just compensation for violations of property rights, making sure that you never, ever, ever get forced to take a vaccine,” Smith said.
“Now I do know that … there are things that we might have missed, and that’s why we kept the bill open. We’re going to continue to listen to what you have to say during that debate.”
On Nov. 2, the second day of the convention, Smith will be facing a leadership vote, and party members will be voting on adopting policy resolutions. The policy items are not binding for the government, but reflect the wish of UCP members.
The provincial Bill of Rights was first introduced by then-Premier Peter Lougheed in 1972, and hasn’t been significantly updated since then.
Amendments tabled in the legislature by Smith’s government on Oct. 28 under Bill 24 include adding language stipulating that Albertans can’t be “coerced” into receiving medical treatment unless they are “likely to cause substantial harm to themselves or to others.” The change is meant to leave the door open for cases such as involuntary addiction treatment.
The interpretation of the word “coerced” will be left to the courts, according to Justice Minister Mickey Amery.
The amendments also add language about protecting gun rights, making government property expropriation more difficult, and expanding the scope of freedom of expression from just written and spoken language to include “other expressive activities.”
The Bill applies to laws and actions of the provincial government, rather than to federal laws or actions by Ottawa.
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians from both laws and actions of the federal and provincial governments. The Alberta Human Rights Act applies to actions of the private sector,” reads a summary of the proposed legislation.
The ammednments have already come under criticism for some of the language used.
For example, some point out that subsections that say the freedoms declared by the Bill are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law” in effect act the same as Section 1 of the federal Charter of Rights, which similarly makes rights and freedoms “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.” During the pandemic, this section was cited in courts when ruling public health measures such as mandates were considered reasonable limits on individual rights.
“Disappointing drafting for the proposed Alberta Bill of Rights. Why copy one of the biggest mistakes from the Canadian Charter?” Bruce Pardy, professor of law at Queen’s University, said on the X platform.
The Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms expressed a similar concern.
“In theory, this language could result in citizens’ rights and freedoms being protected from abuse by government, but in practice judges have interpreted these words to make it easy for governments to violate fundamental Charter freedoms,” the centre said.
“If Bill 24 passes in its current form, Albertans could be coerced into receiving medical care, treatments, or procedures if it is believed that the ‘individual is likely to cause substantial harm to that individual or to others’ by not receiving it.”
