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

The public’s reaction to the bill and its proposals is not particularly controversial, but it has left more than a few voters scratching their heads over its intentions.

During the Progressive Conservatives’ first term in office, a Bill of Rights was introduced in Alberta, described by Premier Peter Lougheed at the time as “a shield for citizens against government abuse of power.”

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

The original composition of Alberta established the rights and freedoms existing in the province without discrimination based on race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, including:

• Right to liberty, security of person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except through due process of law; and
• Right to religion, expression, assembly and association, and freedom of the press.

The Bill of Rights has not been significantly amended since 2015, when references to sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression were included, along with the right of parents to make informed decisions about their children’s education. .

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

• Right to make your own decisions about vaccines and all medical decisions;
• Right not to be deprived of property without due process of law and fair compensation; and
• Right to legally and safely acquire, possess and use firearms.

The UCP government does not offer concrete examples of when someone was forced to receive medical treatment in recent times, or when property rights were infringed.

And firearms, of course, are covered by federal jurisdiction.

Proving any of these would be a matter for the courts to resolve.

It doesn’t matter.

The public reaction to strengthening “property rights” is overwhelmingly positive.

Almost three-quarters (73 per cent) of those interviewed in our October provincial survey agreed with this provision of the bill (46 per cent strongly).

Opinions on the remaining two are a little more varied, but nothing that would be of great concern to a government.

The majority of Albertans (56 per cent) approve of measures to protect the ability to make their own medical decisions (including vaccination).

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

The proposals are warmly welcomed outside the two largest cities, while sentiment is more lukewarm in Edmonton.

They also have the strong support of UCP voters.

Most NDP voters support property rights provisions, but vaccine/medical and gun rights are decidedly unpopular among these voters.

While all of the individual proposed amendments are reasonably well received (with some variations) by most Albertans, the overall reaction to the content of Bill 24 is more moderate.

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

A partisan lens is applied here.

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

But it is strange that even among UCP voters, the set of amendments receives a slightly more muted response than even the least popular individual component.

The most likely explanation is that respondents judge the motives behind the amendments more cynically than the substance of the changes themselves.

Nearly six-in-ten (57 per cent) Albertans believe the UCP’s Bill of Rights proposals have more to do with “political theater and pleasing the premier’s base ahead of a leadership review” than with any genuine political requirement.

Meanwhile, just over a third (35 percent) support the contrary view that these amendments are “significant, important and necessary to protect the rights of citizens in an ever-changing world.”

Once again, the perceived motives are highly polarized among the public.

NDP voters almost universally (97 per cent) believe these proposed amendments are driven by the prime minister’s “complacency.”

By comparison, two-thirds (67 percent) of UCP voters feel a genuine social need for these amendments to reach the legislature.

That said, nearly a quarter (24 percent) of UCP voters see them as “political theater.”

This weekend, nearly 6,000 UCP members gather in Red Deer to judge the premier’s leadership.

Whether or not Bill 24 will influence the outcome of that vote is highly debatable.

But after the leaders vote and after this legislative session ends in December, the rights captured in the bill will be enshrined in Alberta’s highest law, and the majority of Albertans appear to be okay with that, even if the enhanced rights don’t actually change anything or solve anything. some specific problem.

Sometimes symbolism is enough.