While it is good that @jkenney will look at changes, he continues to be spreading false information about this Bill.

UCP going 'back to the drawing board' on controversial Bill 10, Kenney says https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/ucp-going-back-to-the-drawing-board-on-controversial-bill-10/wcm/66a8ab31-db8e-415b-961c-d5aa8741cc33

#ableg #abpoli

1/

Mr Kenney calls Bill 10 “minor technical amendments” to the Public Health Act, which has existed for decades. While the Act is not new, the amendments made were *not* technical. They take what are already extraordinary powers—beyond those in any other province—even further.

2/

The Public Health Act does give medical officers of health powers to enter and examine people suspected of having communicable diseases and can also order the closure of any place and detention of anyone suspected of having a communicable disease. This power predates Bill 10/

3/

There are similar powers in Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act. There are some particular differences—instead of being detained, people can only be ordered to isolate or place themselves under the care of a physician. But the overall approach is similar.

4/

Bill 10 actually does not amend any of those provisions. So, the provisions that @jkenney is defending do not explain or justify Bill 10 in any respect.

5/

Mr Kenney also claims that Alberta Government lawyers were concerned that the existing powers were not sufficiently expansive. For instance, if the Legislature could not meet because of an epidemic, Mr Kenney claims, the capacity to govern could not happen absent Bill 10.

6/

Mr Kenney states that this power should only be available in extremis. However, Bill 10 does not limit that. The power is a ministerial power and does not require consultation. It only require the minister to feel that doing so is “in the public interest.”

7/

Note that there is no ability to undo this during the public health emergency. The Legislature, for instance, cannot disallow the modification by motion; its only power is to refuse to extend a state of public health emergency.

8/

Mr Kenney cites as an example that credit unions need to have relief from a legal obligation to meet in person during the pandemic. Again, this is a power that existed in the Public Health Act prior to Bill 10.

9/

The power to suspend or suspend with some modifications any existing law predates Bill 10. And there are at least some areas where a power like this makes sense.

10/

Ontario, for instance, has in its Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, the power to suspend or modify *certain* provisions in legislation. The criteria for making such an order is also much more stringent than the broad discretion in the Alberta statute.

11/

The Ontario power is sufficiently broad to allow for the in-person meeting exception cited by Mr Kenney.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/200107

12/

Also of note is that the Ontario power is a power conferred to the Lieutenant Governor in Council (that is, Cabinet) instead of a to an individual minister in the Alberta statute. This allows for greater transparency as the relevant Orders are all published and easily found.

13/

As I note above, this is all pre-Bill 10. Bill 10 isn’t anything technical that makes minor changes to the above. It greatly expands the powers that ministers can exercise during a public health emergency, as I have previously discussed.

14/

https://twitter.com/tim4hire/status/1246172878451757057?s=21 https://twitter.com/tim4hire/status/1246172878451757057

Note that Alberta’s Public Health Act provided for considerably greater powers than could be found in any other province even *before* Bill 10. The level of power that Bill 10 added is unprecedented.

15/

Note that while this makes the Bill very controversial and, IMO, bad policy, it does not mean it is unconstitutional, despite what some people have been suggesting.

Legislatures have broad powers, and one of those powers is the ability to delegate authority.

16/

This includes the power to delegate certain law-making powers. Generally, this power is limited to giving Cabinet the power to make certain regulations that implement the administration of the Act’s broad purpose. Most Acts include this limited delegation.

17/

Nothing, however, stops the Legislature from granting even greater authority. The primary constraints is that the Legislature cannot authorize anyone to do anything the Legislature itself could not do, nor can the Legislature bind itself.

18/

These constraints are generally satisfied: the Legislature does have the power to amend its own legislation, so it can delegate that power. In addition, the Legislature can repeal or modify this power and thus undo or change its delegation power.

19/

(There are some nuances to and in addition to the above, but they are less germane to this thread).

The bottom line is that Bill 10 adds huge powers to the Alberta Government which have not been shown to be needful anywhere in Canada.

20/

So, while I am glad that @jkenney is indicating a willingness to revisit Bill 10, his defence of it only adds to any misinformation. Rather than providing any clarity or correcting any confusion about what the Bill does, Mr Kenney has misrepresented this Bill even further.

/fin