Strengthening Alberta’s Bill of Rights: What Does It All Mean?
On August 13, 2024, CBC News reported that Premier Danielle Smith intends to strengthen the Alberta Bill of Rights as soon as this fall, just prior to the UCP’s annual general meeting. A group identifying themselves as the “Black Hat Gang” from Premier Smith’s own riding of Brooks-Medicine Hat has allegedly met with government officials and proposed that a new draft of the Bill of Rights be presented to the legislature. This new draft may include changes addressing issues ranging from medical care to self-defence.
Although it is certainly appealing to envision a future where Albertans have more rights and freedoms than ever before, it is crucial to ask: which, if any, of these proposed changes would fall within the Government of Alberta’s jurisdiction?
Although the provincial governments of Canada have jurisdiction over a wide range of matters compared to the states of our southern neighbour, such jurisdiction is not without its limits. Undoubtedly, the federal government may have a legitimate reason to intervene if the Premier’s changes go too far.
The Alberta Bill of Rights
The Alberta Bill of Rights was initially passed in 1972, however, the 1972 version was updated and replaced in 1980, and then again in the year 2000. The Bill of Rights is relatively brief as far as legislation goes. It outlines which freedoms are protected and that individuals are to be free from discrimination based on race, national origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or gender expression:
a) the right of the individual to liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
c) freedom of religion;
d) freedom of speech;
e) freedom of assembly and association;
f) freedom of the press;
g) the right of parents to make informed decisions respecting the education of their children.
The rights included in the Bill of Rights overlap considerably with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the current language of the Bill of Rights is clear that no other legislation in Alberta shall infringe on these rights unless it is expressly declared that such legislation operates “notwithstanding” the Alberta Bill of Rights. That said it is not clear if the Court can use one statute to override others, as unlike the Charter, the Alberta Bill of Rights is not a constitutional document.
The Proposed Changes
Although Premier Smith has spoken publicly about changing the Bill of Rights, she has yet to reveal the specific contents of the proposed changes aside from references to medical freedoms. Specifically, Smith stated that the amendments to the Bill of Rights would make it “illegal for the government to discriminate against any individual for refusing medical treatment.” Such refusal of medical treatment would extend to vaccinations.
Despite remaining guarded with respect to all of the substantial amendments to the Bill of Rights, high-ranking members of the UCP have indicated that it will likely include “95 per cent” of what party members had supported at last year’s convention.
If the ideas touted by the Black Hat Gang are any indication of what is in store for these proposed amendments, we can expect to see freedoms included in the new Bill of Rights such as “life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness” as well as the right to keep and bear firearms and to “stand your ground” (i.e. the right to self-defence).
The Constitutional Implications
In Canada, government power is divided between provinces and the federal government pursuant to Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. For instance, provincial governments have exclusive jurisdiction related to property, civil rights, and the delivery of healthcare. As a result, the right to be free from discrimination for the refusal of vaccines may be within provincial jurisdiction. However, it is still unclear how these amendments would affect federal employees who fail to get vaccinated and the potential “discrimination” that they may or may not suffer at the hands of the federal government as a result.
Federal jurisdiction regarding firearms is—unfortunately for the Black Hat Gang—much more straightforward. Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 proclaims that the Government of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law powers. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada has decisively determined that firearms should be classified under the criminal law head of power as opposed to being considered in connection to property rights. Accordingly, it is unlikely that any fundamental changes to the treatment of firearms within Alberta will be viewed as legitimate, as it is only the federal government that has the power to enact firearm-related legislation.
Although it remains unclear what will be included in the amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights, the rhetoric surrounding the Premier’s proposed amendments suggests that we may be heading toward more constitutional battles with the federal government. Despite an arguably well-intentioned desire to increase the freedoms of Albertans, this writer will be keenly watching for the first draft of the proposed changes to the Bill of Rights in order to ascertain which rights may actually be strengthened and which rights represent nothing more than unconstitutional political showmanship.
Author: Nicholas Blanchette