Mark Henry’s Opinion: Alberta’s Bill 24 is the first major change to the Bill of Rights since 2015

This week, the Smith government introduced Bill 24, the Alberta Bill of Rights Amendment Act.

Public reaction to the bill and its proposals has not been controversial, but has left many voters scratching their heads about its intentions.

The Bill of Rights was introduced to Alberta during the first term of the Progressive Conservatives, which then-Prime Minister Peter Lougheed called “a shield for citizens against the government abusing its power”.

This was before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined in the Constitution in 1982.

Alberta’s original constitution set out the rights and freedoms that exist in the province without discrimination based on race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, including:

• The right to freedom, personal integrity and property ownership, as well as the right not to be deprived of it except in the appropriate judicial procedure; and
• The right to religion, speech, assembly and association, freedom of the press.

The Bill of Rights has been largely unchanged since 2015, when references to sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and the right of parents to make informed decisions about their children’s education were included.

Bill 24 would essentially make three significant amendments to the current Bill of Rights:

• The right to self-choice regarding vaccinations and all medical decisions;
• The right not to be deprived of one’s property without due process and just compensation; and
• The right to legally acquire, keep and safely use firearms.

The UCP government does not cite specific examples of when someone was forced into treatment or property rights were violated in the recent past.

And firearms, of course, fall under federal jurisdiction.

The testing of any of these will be decided by the courts.

It doesn’t matter.

The public reaction to the strengthening of “property rights” is mostly positive.

Almost three-quarters (73 percent) of respondents in our October statewide survey agreed with this provision of the bill (46 percent strongly).

Views on the remaining two are a bit more mixed, but nothing that would cause serious concern to the government.

A majority of Albertans (56 percent) approve of measures to protect a person’s ability to make their own health decisions (including vaccinations).

A smaller majority (52 percent) also approves of enshrining the right to own and use firearms (legally, of course), although that proposal has the most opposition (44 percent disapprove).

The proposals are very well received outside the two largest cities, while the mood is most tepid in Edmonton.

The voters of the OGP also heartily support them.

A majority of NDP voters support property rights provisions, but vaccine/medical rights and firearms rights are clearly unpopular with these voters.

While the individual proposed amendments are all fairly well received (with some variation) by most Albertans, the general reaction to the substance of Bill 24 is more subdued.

In fact, when asked to rank their views on the proposed changes as a package, Albertans were evenly split with 45 per cent approving and disapproving.

A partisan lens is used here.

Only eight percent of NDP voters overall support the proposed changes, compared to nearly four-fifths (79 percent) of UGP voters.

But surprisingly, even among UGP voters, the package of amendments evokes a slightly more restrained reaction than even the least popular individual component.

The most likely explanation is that the respondents are more cynical about the motives of the amendments than the essence of the changes themselves.

Almost six in ten (57 per cent) Albertans believe the UCP’s Bill of Rights proposals are more about “political theater and pandering to the prime minister before a leadership review” than any real policy demand.

At the same time, slightly more than a third (35 percent) support the opposite view that these amendments are “meaningful, important and necessary to protect the rights of citizens in a constantly changing world.”

Again, the motives perceived by the public are highly polarized.

NDP voters almost universally (97 percent) believe that these proposed amendments are caused by “condescension” of the Prime Minister.

By comparison, two-thirds (67 percent) of UDP voters feel there is a real public need for these amendments to find their way to the legislature.

At the same time, almost a quarter (24 percent) of UGP voters perceive them as “political theater.”

Almost 6,000 UCP members are gathering in Red Deer this weekend to assess the Prime Minister’s leadership.

Whether Bill 24 will affect the outcome of this vote is highly debatable.

But after the leadership vote and when the legislative session ends in December, the rights outlined in the bill will be enshrined in Alberta’s most important law – and most Albertans seem to agree with that, even if the expanded rights don’t actually change or solve anything. some specific problems.

Sometimes symbolism is enough.