Changing Alberta’s Bill of Rights could raise legal challenges

Premier Danielle Smith’s plan to amend the Alberta Bill of Rights to enshrine three new rights to guns, property and vaccination could lead to legal challenges , according to a constitutionalist.

Premier Danielle Smith, in a video posted online last week, expressed her desire to amend the Alberta Bill of Rights. She has proposed a bill that is expected to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly at the end of October.

Meanwhile, Eric Adams, a constitutional law professor at the University of Alberta, points out that the Alberta Bill of Rights cannot completely override other laws and that, when faced with an obvious conflict, judges must find a way to make the two laws work together.

If this is not possible, they may decide to make the offending part of another law inapplicable.

A court faced with a constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights must take the rights it contains seriously.

Historically, the Alberta Bill of Rights has focused on protecting issues that tend to have reasonable political consensus, notes Eric Adams.

Its status could, however, be called into question if we add rights that tend to represent more particular political points of view, he believes.

Not everyone agrees on [les armes à feu et les vaccins]. If you take these topics, turn them into rights […]then I think you are making an ideological statement.

He adds that future Alberta governments may view the bill as a tool for partisan agendas.

The gun issue

According to observers, the situation could become more delicate due to the distribution of powers between the federal government and provincial counterparts.

It is quite clear that the Alberta Bill of Rights will have no impact on whether or not the federal Parliament prohibits the possession of certain types of weapons, or whether it passes laws that restrict their possession in various ways.

Mr. Adams explains that citizens should not believe that the right to own a gun means that no one can stop them from owning one. The law of the Parliament of Canada will always trump these rights.

Chinenye Anokwuru, spokesperson for the provincial justice minister, said the proposed firearms amendment would represent a signal from the Alberta government to the federal government that we take legal gun ownership seriously.

Health care is a provincial responsibility

Unlike guns, which fall under federal jurisdiction, the opposite could happen for vaccinations. Health care delivery falls under provincial jurisdiction.

The final wording of the modification proposed by Danielle Smith on this subject will be one to watch, according to Eric Adams, who explains that, Healthcare workers have long been required to get vaccinated to prevent illnesses that could be transmitted to vulnerable patients during a medical procedure.

Are we really saying that in Alberta we are not going to require doctors or nurses to receive safe vaccines that could prevent the spread of measles, hepatitis or the flu?

Chinenye Anokwuru responded that the proposed amendment regarding vaccination would only apply to government entities and not private employers.

About property rights

Danielle Smith noted that property rights were already mentioned in the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 and in the Alberta Bill of Rights in its original form.

But one element has always been missing, namely the affirmation of fair compensation, because if private property is taken for public use, then the government, on behalf of the public, must pay for it.

Fair compensation will be included in the event that the property is taken entirely through expropriation proceedings, or if the effective use of the property is removed.

Professor Eric Adams says Alberta law has long emphasized compensation for expropriation under the Expropriation Act.

According to Chinenye Anokwuru, the changes will ensure thatno Albertan can be deprived of their property without legal authority and fair compensation.

With information from Joel Dryden