It suffers from weak language that excuses government at every turn

You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.

In late November, the Alberta legislature passed its newly improved Bill of Rights. The bill is a signature plank of Premier Danielle Smith’s United Conservative government. New provisions purport to guarantee rights to hold property, own firearms and prohibit vaccine mandates. Unfortunately, the bill may not do any of those things. In the end, it’s not likely to amount to a hill of beans.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Don't have an account? Create Account

First enacted in 1972, the Alberta Bill of Rights has never been a bulwark against state action. Much like the Canadian Bill of Rights, courts have largely sidelined it. Contrary to what some Albertans may expect, their newly amended Bill of Rights does not grant ironclad rights. At least four problems stand in the way.

First problem: Like the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Alberta Bill of Rights is a statute and not a constitutional enactment like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No statute can limit the power of the legislature to pass new legislation that overrides, amends or repeals it. Future governments can explicitly breach the Bill of Rights. In fact, that’s what it says: “The Legislature may expressly declare in an Act that a law of Alberta operates notwithstanding this Act.”

That could at least pose a political impediment. Governments don’t like to announce that they are breaching rights. But transparency might not even be required. Under the Canadian Bill of Rights, courts have upheld statutes merely on the grounds that they........

© National Post