Danielle Smith’s proposed Bill of Rights changes spark debate ahead of UCP leadership review
By Malia Jolly, November 5 2024—
Premier Danielle Smith’s recent proposal to amend Alberta’s Bill of Rights has sparked significant debate regarding its political and legal implications. These proposed changes, which focus on medical consent, property rights, and firearms ownership, come just weeks before the United Conservative Party’s (UCP) leadership review vote, raising questions about their timing and intent.
In an interview with the Gauntlet, Lisa Young, professor of political science at the University of Calgary, discussed the broader political and legal implications of these changes.
According to Young, the timing of these amendments is closely linked to the UCP leadership review. Smith’s proposed changes, particularly regarding medical choice and vaccination, aim to rally key supporters within the party.
“It’s not a coincidence that we’re hearing about these changes just weeks before the leadership review,” Young said. “There’s a long history of conservative parties ousting leaders mid-term, and Smith is offering policy concessions to groups that were critical in her leadership bid, such as Take Back Alberta.”
Young states that the amendments emphasizing property and firearms rights are largely symbolic, as provincial law cannot override federal regulations.
“When it comes to firearms, this is under federal jurisdiction. Alberta’s Bill of Rights can’t change that,” Young said. “The courts won’t view this as an argument to override federal law in Alberta. The proposed amendments are political statements rather than enforceable legal changes.”
Firearm ownership remains a deeply political issue in Alberta, particularly in rural areas.
“Even though the province can’t override federal firearm laws, the UCP can gain politically by appearing to defend Albertans’ rights.”
Despite the symbolic nature of the proposed changes, Young warned that they could create confusion among the public.
“It’s concerning that the provincial government may be giving the impression that it can protect firearm rights or resist federal legislation,” she explained. “It would be a terrible thing if an Albertan ended up being arrested for owning a gun that was illegal under federal law because they thought that the provincial Bill of Rights allowed them to do this.”
Critics, including Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi, have said the amendments distract from critical issues like healthcare. Young agreed with these sentiments, suggesting that focusing on symbolic amendments rather than addressing healthcare could hurt the government in the long run.
“The dilemma for the government long-term is that policy areas they neglect today may pose an issue for them once they get to the election,” Young said. “If we were in particular to look at policy around healthcare — where every province is struggling with healthcare delivery — Alberta has seen a significant decline in the number of family doctors available. The ability of the medical system to keep up with population change is an area where the provincial government should be focusing its attention.”
In terms of medical choice, Young observed that Smith’s position aligns with her past opposition to COVID-19 public health measures, with rhetoric surrounding personal autonomy and choice; however, there is the potential for inconsistency when it comes to Smith’s stance on medical autonomy for transgender individuals.
“There’s criticism that Smith’s commitment to autonomy doesn’t extend to areas like transgender medical treatment, and that could raise questions about the consistency of her policies,” said Young.
Ultimately, Young views these amendments as part of a broader political strategy to consolidate Smith’s base ahead of the leadership vote.
“This is about satisfying her core supporters within the party,” she said. “These changes may not have a lasting legal impact, but they will be part of her legacy as premier.”
As Alberta’s Bill of Rights has been in place since 1972, Young noted that these proposed amendments, like others before them, are unlikely to make significant changes to the daily lives of Albertans.
“The Bill of Rights has never been central to provincial legislation, and these changes won’t alter that,” Young said.
Young reflected on the provincial government’s tense relationship with the Trudeau administration.
She suggested this tense dynamic could shift once the federal government changes, particularly if another conservative party leads it.
“I think expectations are high that the policies that will be delivered by a Poilievre government will be much more in keeping with the views of the provincial UCP government,” said Young.
However, Young also warned that a provincial government may find it more difficult to contrast itself against a federal government with which it mostly agrees.
“But there will still be issues on which they disagree, like issues where the federal government doesn’t act as quickly or doesn’t go as far as the Albertan government might like, so it will be much more difficult to manage,” said Young.
More information about Smith’s proposed changes to Alberta’s Bill of Rights can be found on the Government of Alberta website.