New bills

Taking a look at Conservative's flurry of new legislation

After a three-week hiatus, the provincial legislature resumed November 21 with the government introducing six new bills, making changes to impaired driving regulations, court efficiency, land appropriation, the Health Quality Council of Alberta, foster care and election dates.

Fixed Election Dates

A set election schedule was one of Premier Alison Redford’s campaign promises during the Conservative party leadership race in September. Most municipalities and provinces in Canada already have fixed dates for general elections.

The government proposes to hold elections every four years, on any given date between March 1 and May 31. The three-month window has stirred criticism from opposition members such as Liberal MLA for Edmonton-Gold Bar, Hugh MacDonald, who says Alberta elections should fall on a specific day, not “a fixed election season.”

Alison Keppler of Alberta Justice says the reasoning behind opting for a season rather than a date was that the government wants the flexibility to choose a day which does not coincide with floating holidays or major events.

“We want to ensure Albertans can participate in the provincial elections, so we have attempted to minimize potential conflicts,” she says.

To ensure the legislation is constitutional, Alberta’s lieutenant-governor would retain the power to dissolve the legislature at his or her discretion. If passed, the first provincial election under the new schedule would be held in the spring of 2012.

Health Inquiry

Another of Premier Redford’s promises was an independent public inquiry into allegations of government intimidation of physicians and emergency room mismanagement. Her suggestion during the two-day legislative session in October that an inquiry could instead be handled by a beefed-up Health Quality Council of Alberta (HQCA) irritated her opponents. Regardless of the opposition, Bill 24 will strengthen the HQCA and allow it to appoint an investigating panel, headed by a judge, in any forthcoming inquiry.

Andy Weiler at Alberta Health and Wellness explains the bill empowers the HQCA to subpoena witnesses and compel evidence, and requires the HQCA to report to the legislature instead of the health minister. However, it will not have the authority to trigger an inquiry.

“A public inquiry is a rare and significant occurrence, requiring a significant commitment of financial and human resources.... It will be up to cabinet to determine whether it is in the public interest to call an inquiry,” says Weiler. The act ensures the confidentiality of patient records is respected.

Impaired Driving

After praising B.C.’s tough new impaired driving laws, Premier Redford said her government may introduce similar changes to Alberta’s drunk-driving legislation. Citing 96 deaths and 1,384 injuries related to drunk driving in 2010, Transportation Minister Ray Danyluk introduced Bill 26’s new DUI sanctions.

The government claims the new penalties are based on research into changing behaviour, primarily so that repeat offenders and drivers with a blood alcohol level over .08 face harsher consequences. Some of those consequences involve mandatory treatment and vehicle confiscation.

Of note, licence suspensions will apply if a driver has a blood alcohol level over .05, if a graduated licence driver has any alcohol in his or her system, or if a driver refuses to provide a breath sample.

Land Appropriation

Alberta’s Land Assembly Project Act was passed in 2009 and has since become infamous among rural landowners and land rights advocates. The law outlines the provincial government’s ability to seize privately owned land it requires for major infrastructure projects, such as power lines and ring roads.

Alberta Infrastructure’s Cameron Traynor says landowners had four concerns with the 2009 legislation: “access to full compensation, confusion of what types of projects will be built, penalties under the act, and access to the courts.”

He says many were confused as to what kinds of public projects may lead to their land being expropriated, and how to ensure they would be fully compensated for the loss of their land.

The amendments to the act are intended to address those concerns, ensuring landowners are consulted in depth before selling their land to the government. Traynor says no new projects are currently being planned.

Advocate for Children in Justice System

Alberta already has an advocate, Del Graff, for children in foster care and the criminal justice system. However, the province is looking at shifting the role to an independent position, reporting to the legislature instead of the Ministry of Alberta Human Services.

The advocate will be tasked with highlighting areas where the child protection system needs improvement and will have the power to investigate cases of injury or death in care.

Alberta Human Services representative Kathy Tefler says the changes will make the system more transparent. In addition to an independent officer, the legislation would also set up a quality council composed of external experts.

“[The council will] be the other check and balance as far as ensuring the interests of the children and youth who are in the system are looked after,” says Tefler.

housekeeping

The sixth bill, Bill 22, makes “housekeeping changes” to existing justice and courts statutes, intended to “improve the efficiency of Alberta’s courts and add clarity to Justice legislation,” according to a press release issued November 21.

 

 


Comments: 10

officematt2002 wrote:

"The government claims the new penalties are based on research into changing behaviour" HAHAHAHAHA thanks for the laugh. What a joke Redford is....finding my inner Yoda I am.

on Nov 26th, 2011 at 2:42am Report Abuse

Ron wrote:

At least three of these Bills demonstrate clearly why this government has got to be removed at the earliest possible moment.
The "fixed election season" is a gross avoidance of the true issue, and is little to no improvement on the current state of affairs. It is just a waste of legislature time and money.
The Health Quality Council is a sham. There is no point to another rubber-stamp white-wash committee that has no power to compel inquiries, which are the only way that substantive change will be made. This bill merely gives the illusion of doing something.
The impaired driving proposal is asinine. It allows even more dictatorial powers to be given to police. In removing due process of law from what can be serious charges, costs and inconvenience to motorists, it violates the CHARTER S. 7 right to "life, liberty and security of the person and the right to not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." As such, when they get round to trying to apply it to someone who has money, it will be found nugatory (of no force or effect) and struck down. Another gross waste of taxpayer money while trying to make up the budget deficit on the backs of citizens.

on Nov 26th, 2011 at 4:10pm Report Abuse

bryce.shaw wrote:

So Ron.. they're mirroring what has been made in BC against the drunk driving laws, which have actually been pretty effective at discouraging drunk driving. "Life, liberty and security of person" doesn't involve the right to drive drunk.

on Nov 30th, 2011 at 12:21am Report Abuse

Ron wrote:

Due process of law must be followed at all times in any legal proceeding. To not do so is to ignore the rule of law. THOSE are principles of fundamental justice. To ignore them violates the CHARTER right, completely irrespective of what any law alleges to prohibit.
B.C. will be in the same mess - losing and with its legislation ruled "of no force or effect" when some wealthy person gets annoyed and takes them to court too.
If you think giving arbitrary and dictatorial power to an elitist minority which operates from an agenda of self-service, then you must truly miss the K.G.B.
A person with a blood alcohol level below .08 is NOT impaired under the Criminal Code of Canada. Anyone charged with "impaired driving" would therefore be ruled "not guilty."
Finally, Constitution Act 1867, s. 91 (27) declares
"It shall be lawful for the Queen by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of
Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order and
good Government of Canada, in relation to all
Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects
by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures
of the Provinces: and for greatre Certainty, but
not so as to restrict the Generality of the
foregoing Terms of thie Section, it is hereby
declared tat (notwithstanding anything in this Act)
the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament
of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the
Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated:
that is to say

on Nov 30th, 2011 at 6:54pm Report Abuse

Ron wrote:

(above omitted .... at end of quote.)

on Nov 30th, 2011 at 6:55pm Report Abuse

Ron wrote:

"The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in all Criminal Matters."
Therefore, Provincial laws of such stature are "ultra vires" - beyond the power of the enacting Provincial Legislature - and of no force or effect.

on Nov 30th, 2011 at 6:59pm Report Abuse

mgb wrote:

To be honest, when it comes go drinking and driving, fatal accidents especially, I wouldn't lose any sleep if they just shot the offender on the spot.

I think the criminal code is woefully inadequate (obviously) when it comes to this issue and I'm happy to see provinces on the leading edge of preventative legislation. I'm also not sure a legal challenge of this matter would stand up in the Supreme Court, which is the truest test of viability, even above internet chat threads.

on Nov 30th, 2011 at 11:24pm Report Abuse

Ron wrote:

Constitution Act 1982 (contains Charter of Rights and Freedoms), s. 52(1) reads:
"The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of
Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with its
provisions is, to the extent of the inconsistency,
of no force or effect."

Not possible to get any clearer than that. Any legal challenge would be a slam dunk. A scan of the Supreme Court Record - even long before the 1982 Act - shows numerous examples of legislation struck down due to jurisdictional infringement.
Remember that the Federal government can suggest to the Governor-General that he/she Disallow any legislation. The G-G can also direct the Lt. Gov. of any province to do the same. Just because that power has not been used since 1943, do not assume it is invalid. The sections that allow "stacking" of the Senate had never been used until Mulroney used them to get passage of the G.S.T. in 1991.
There is nothing wrong with the Criminal Code penalty. I wonder why provincial governments seem bent upon stomping on the light drinker while not wacking the hard-core "blotto" types who actually cause the lion's share of impaired driving injury and death.
The guy who hit my car in 1987 at 5:40 p.m blew .26 and then .22 one and then two hours later. He claimed he only drank the night before which, if so, would have rendered him DEAD 12 hours before the crash. He put two people in hospital - me for 2 weeks, a woman for almost 3 months - and caused a concussion in another man. He destroyed three cars besides his. He was sentenced to 10 months and served 3.

on Dec 1st, 2011 at 12:07am Report Abuse

mgb wrote:

If things were so cut and dry we wouldn't have a Supreme Court at all.

on Dec 1st, 2011 at 1:39am Report Abuse

Ron wrote:

Unfortunately, we require a Supreme Court because many - mostly governments - refuse to take "no" for an answer. By the time any citizen can declare a position before the Supreme Court of Canada, they will have sunk at least $40,000 into the issue at lower courts. Of course, only a limited number of people can afford the cost and time involved. So most just give up, take their licks, and walk away. But that is NOT justice. It is just bullying by a government with a battalion of lawyers and deep pockets (they use OUR pockets).
When you advocate disregarding the rule of law and just arbitrarily and summarily executing the alleged responsible party, you would take this country back beyond the Magna Carta, beyond even the days of trial by ordeal. That's the realm of life without any sort of civil society. As Thomas Hobbes put it more than 360 years ago, that is "cold, nasty, brutish, and short." I cannot accept that any rational person could seriously favour such absurdity.

on Dec 4th, 2011 at 12:28pm Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © Fast Forward Weekly 1995-2012

About Us Contact Us Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use