We are now less than two weeks away from the resumption of the Alberta legislature sitting, and based on a recent flurry of teases and announcements from the premier, it should be a busy and lively session.
Although, with the UCP’s AGM — and the accompanying leadership review vote for Premier Danielle Smith — set for early November, the government’s agenda pre-leadership vote and post-leadership vote might look a little different. Certain issues are likely to be front-loaded to make sure they’re on full display before party members cast their votes.
One of those matters will certainly be legislation to amend Alberta’s Bill of Rights. Late last month, the premier signalled that three specific changes were coming to the bill — aimed at addressing what are clearly priorities for many UCP members but that many other Albertans might be leery about.
Both the cheerleaders and detractors of these changes are likely overreacting, however. For all the significance that the premier has tried to inject into this issue, not to mention the implied significance of something called a Bill of Rights, this is all largely symbolic window-dressing.
It should be noted that the regulation of firearms is quite explicitly federal jurisdiction. There’s nothing the Bill of Rights or any other provincial legislation can do to exempt Alberta firearms owners from the laws of the land. The province can continue to oppose Ottawa’s misguided firearms policies, but no special gun rights can be carved out here.
Frankly, Albertans might be a little confused by what role the Bill of Rights plays when it comes to their rights and civil liberties. Alberta’s Bill of Rights is not exactly toothless, but it’s not a constitution. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that carries that constitutional weight, and it’s what the courts would defer to in such matters.
Since Alberta’s Bill of Rights exists as legislation, just as easily as this government can alter it, so too can a future government. Therefore, Smith is not tying the hands of future Alberta governments. Ultimately, she’s merely proposing to tie her own hands. It’s redundant for the premier to try to legally prevent her from implementing measures that she wouldn’t implement anyway.
The connection to internal UCP politics cannot be overlooked here. For all the issues that undermined former premier Jason Kenney’s leadership, none was bigger than the decision to implement a vaccine mandate in the fall of 2021 — especially after railing against the idea (and fundraising off that opposition). Smith is sending a clear message that she would never consider such a policy, but I think everyone pretty much understands that by now.
It’s not unlike an earlier promise to expand Alberta’s Taxpayer Protection Act to require any tax increase to first be approved in a referendum. Again, no one is really expecting this premier to raise taxes, and any future government that intends to do so could just as easily make the required legislative amendments. So while it served the purpose of planting a flag on one side of the debate, it was substantively quite meaningless.
The same holds true when it comes to vaccination. Regardless of what the Bill of Rights will soon say, a future Alberta government in a future pandemic could choose to implement a vaccine mandate. And voters can judge them accordingly.
It would seem that there ought to be more pressing issues for MLAs to tackle this fall than what amounts to pointless and symbolic posturing.
But, as has become the norm in Alberta, party politics dictates otherwise.
Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge airs weekdays from 12:30 to 3 p.m. on QR Calgary Radio
X: @RobBreakenridge