Smith’s views on human rights questioned.
Smith dodges questions on her personal views on subject
As polls show an increasing likelihood that Danielle Smith could become Alberta’s next premier, the Wildrose party leader’s human rights views are being called into question.
On Wednesday, Smith dodged queries on whether she personally believes in the concept of “conscience rights” that would allow a marriage commissioner to opt out of marrying a same-sex couple or a Catholic doctor from prescribing birth control.
Asked repeatedly about her stance by reporters, Smith said only that her party believes there should be a mechanism in the court system to “balance” competing rights. The party’s platform calls for the cases now heard by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to instead be handled by a new division within the provincial court system.
“If anyone is ever denied service for any reason then our new proposal for how we would deal with that is with a separate division of the provincial court,” Smith said Wednesday during a campaign event at Concordia University College in Edmonton. “All we’re doing is providing a process, so that in the event that rights come into conflict, we have the ability for them to be adjudicated.”
In a survey conducted by the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association last August, Smith spoke directly to the concept of conscience rights.
“The Wildrose will ensure conscience rights for marriage commissioners and health professionals,” she said in response to a question asking leaders what human rights issues they would address. “This would ensure the protection of personal expression for individuals, while also ensuring that personal beliefs are respected for all Albertans.”
The party’s 2010 policy handbook says a Wildrose government “will implement legislation protecting the ‘conscience rights’ of health care professionals.” The 2011 policy book is slightly softened to say the government “should” implement conscience rights.
Asked Wednesday what that might mean for doctors, nurses and patients, Smith deflected the question.
She said party members felt there was an imbalance in the way the Human Rights Commission assessed some rights ahead of others and asked caucus to craft a solution. The new court mechanism was the response.
“I fundamentally believe Albertans should decide the direction of the province,” Smith said.
“And what Albertans are telling me is that they want to see a venue where they can have a balance of rights, where everyone’s rights are respected. Those are my marching orders.”
Speaking to reporters in Calgary, Progressive Conservative Leader Alison Redford said the conscience rights controversy is a “critical discussion point in the election,” suggesting the Wildrose has been intentionally avoiding the topic.
“I was very frightened to hear the discussion today and I’ve been quite frightened to hear the development of that in the last month,” she said.
“I certainly respect people’s personal beliefs, but I believe in a province where we have to treat individuals with dignity and respect. We have to live in a community where we respect diversity and we understand that everyone feels safe and included.”
Redford said newcomers to the province need to be assured that when they seek services, those services will be provided. “And when people take on professional responsibilities, I expect them to be able to meet those professional responsibilities.”
Dan Shapiro, a research associate with the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, said all Canadians have freedom of conscience rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But he said the Saskatchewan government gave up in its bid to allow marriage commissioners to opt out of performing marriages for samesex couples after the province’s Court of Appeal ruled the proposal unconstitutional in a reference case last year. The judges ruled the detrimental impact on same-sex couples far outweighed the proposed law’s aim of accommodating the commissioners’ religious views.
Shapiro said if a conscience rights law was broadly worded to say “that you can refuse to perform a marriage that you think violates your religious beliefs, what if those beliefs include, for example, that there shouldn’t be mixed race marriages?
“There’s a slippery slope problem.”
University of Alberta health law expert Timothy Caulfield said physicians should disclose their personal values if they have objections to certain patients or treatments.