Alberta is aggressively chipping away at civil liberties, while following the BC NDP’s lead in targeting Indigenous pipeline resistors
Photo Credit: (News 1130 / Google Images)
Written by: Morgana Adby
Once again, Jason Kenney is saving Albertans from the terror of environmental extremists, by taking away civil liberties. Bill 1 and Bill 22 are both awaiting royal assent to be passed into law. This is what all the fuss is about:
Bill 1: Criminalizing Indigenous Voices For Fun And Profit
The Critical Infrastructure Defence Act would enforce the unlawful destruction, obstruction of maintenance, the blocking or entering of infrastructure deemed essential. This includes infrastructure supporting the oil industry, including pipelines, railways and highways. The bill is broadly written so that a wide array of direct action can be met with steep fines and even jail time.
However, the intended application of the law is narrow: to prohibit Indigenous Land Defenders from being an inconvenience. The legislation was written at the height of the Wet’suwet’en solidarity blockades.
There are three important things to note about this bill. This law will likely be challenged in the courts over the flagrant charter violation. A group of law professors at the University of Calgary have assessed if it violates the charter and found it likely does violate five fundamental freedoms. One professor told Global News that “because it is so broad and it does potentially impact marginalized groups more adversely,” it is likely that courts would find at least one violation when weighed against the utility of the law.
If it reaches the courts, the conservatives could always go for the nuclear option, but that is unlikely given how divisive the legislation is.
A Charter case can last a significant period of time, meanwhile, the law remains on the books to punish inconvenient people. Although blocking railways or violating a court injunction was already an illegal form of direct action, the true intent of the law is to scare enough ‘moderate’ people away from engaging.
With an organized coalition, it is easier to keep eyes on police conduct towards land defenders. Conversely, without an organized coalition, it is easier to criminalize the voices for Indigenous land sovereignty. This can be done by obfuscating valid concerns with the stories of entitled environmentalists and legitimately upsetting job losses. As if the Land Defenders are at fault for the insufficient consultation which occurred in the first place, as opposed to the governmental and corporate decision-makers.
If Premier Kenney can paint the base of the movement as thuggish, lawless people, the mask of civility can fall off. Suddenly, it is not a dinner table policy conversation, but a question of ‘law and order’ applied to a group of bad-faith actors.
Bill 1 sets a horrible precedent. When Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation was just assaulted by RCMP in Alberta, it is shameful to take more power away from Indigenous communities. Likewise, it is also a time where BLM is highlighting police violence all over the world. For Canada, the brunt of police violence is directed towards black and Indigenous peoples. So it is particularly horrifying to see the Alberta government shamelessly criminalizing the voices of those groups.
Bill 22: Killing Democracy A Little Too Quickly To Go Unnoticed
Bill 22 would nullify Lorne Gibson's role as Alberta's election commissioner and fast track new oil sands projects without cabinet approval. It would also give more jurisdiction to the board that observes conflicts between landowners and oil companies. Typically, tribunals favour companies and landowners more than courts, so this could have a significant impact on precedent - Brad Corson should be pleased by the news.
Opposition Leader Rachel Notley, to give her credit, has fervently opposed the bill. Ten hours of debate, she told Global News, “That’s how long it took this UCP government to dismantle democracy.”
She has been particularly concerned with the status of the election commissioner, who had been investigating the conservatives for campaign finance violations for the last three years. The new commissioner position will no longer be under an independent body, taking away any teeth to hold the government accountable.
The UCP says that it is a cost-saving provision and that the investigation can continue while under the authority of the chief electoral officer. It is reasonable to lack faith that a non-independent investigation will yield the same results as an independent investigation. More importantly, nobody should have to have faith: accountability measures are to prevent a worst-case scenario.
The oil-related provisions are equally concerning. From now on, elected officials will not make the call on new oil sands projects, the Alberta Energy Regulator will. This body has a poor reputation for favouring industry and being out of touch with communities affected by these projects. This is doubly so for rural and First Nations communities. For example, the body was recently condemned by three First Nations for pausing the monitoring of soil, water, emissions and wildlife in the oil patch.
The bill will also terminate Energy Efficiency Alberta. The UCP has said this is just because Energy Regulation Alberta is an overlapping body, that this will save costs and that it makes sense to focus on industry regulation within the province.
It turns out the two bodies do different work. Energy Efficiency Alberta was an NDP-era initiative to invest in green energy with funds brought in from the provincial carbon tax. This was one of the few mechanisms for diversifying Alberta’s industry to minimize the economic dependence on fossil fuels.
The claim that Energy Efficiency Alberta is a pointless bureaucracy sucking up taxes seems to be mostly false. The agency reported to Global News that their work has improved Alberta’s economy, “delivering $850 million in economic growth and returning $3.20 for every $1 invested.
What Next?
These bills did not arise in a vacuum. They are a product of the reactionary wave of pro-industry nationalism out west. Polarization between hardline oil supporters and environmentalists is nothing new for Western Canada, but neither are tensions between primary industries and Indigenous nations. More recently, Bill 1 reflects the characterization of Land Defenders as somehow both privileged and thuggish.
When our leaders across the country normalize this characterization, it becomes very easy to justify legislation that addresses this ‘threat’ - even if it suspends liberties and targets protected groups. The whole point is to de-legitimize inconvenient voices. This trend is best exemplified by Premier Horgan’s decision not to meet with Wet’suwet’en Hereditary chiefs face to face. If he did that, then he would have to speak to them as equals, which is not good PR when you are trying to delegitimize a group.
Likewise, this criminalization narrative is reflected in the recent history of BC - Wet’suwet’en relations. The raid of the Un’istot’en camp, where a rifle was pointed at Indigenous Land Defenders that were simply refusing to leave their land, is a clear example. Therefore, we cannot capitulate to these less extreme forms of oppression: if you can repress a group one way, it’s seen as more acceptable to repress in other ways.
With Bill 1, Jason Kenney is criminalizing opposition and silencing Indigenous voices. With Bill 22, Jason Kenney is taking away the accountability measures that run counter to his interests.
The chief problem being that these things are not optional: we have freedom of expression for a reason, we have these accountability measures for a reason. For all the conservative posturing about the rule of law, it is ironic that Jason Kenney could convince his party that it should not apply to them.
More Articles