Kenney spreading 'misunderstanding' on COVID-19 restrictions, fueling protesters: experts

Alberta's premier is spreading "constitutional misunderstanding" and bowing to protesters in his sharp turn to remove COVID-19 restrictions faster than he originally promised, according to experts in law and politics.

"There is continued need for Albertans to be cautious, careful. Please continue to follow the public health guidelines," Jason Kenney said on Jan. 27.

Twelve days later, he said: "The threat of COVID-19 to public health no longer outweighs the hugely damaging impact of health restrictions on our society."

The premier has repeatedly argued that the circumstances have now changed and his plan is safe, but at least four Alberta political scientists aren't buying his explanation.

"All that's really changed over the last two weeks is that we've had the trucker convoy to Ottawa, we've had the Coutts protest, we've had the Ambassador Bridge protest now," said Feodor Snagovsky at the University of Alberta.

He joins other political scientists Duane Bratt, Keith Brownsey and Lisa Young who have all said that Kenney appears to be motivated more by an upcoming leadership review than by what the virus is doing in Alberta.

"He is trying to appeal to those who have been telling him for the better part of two years that they’ve had enough of the restrictions and don't want any more of that," Snagovsky said.

Kenney has denied this, and argued that he's only doing what other jurisdictions are doing.

The premier pointed to new case numbers which appeared to be falling, although exact numbers are not known due to testing protocols. COVID-19 hospitalization numbers dipped and then rose again in early February.

In two appearances in recent days, the premier referred to public health measures that he and his government put in place as "damaging" at least 13 times.

He also said restrictions are unconstitutional, during a sit down interview with CTV News Edmonton on Wednesday.

KENNEY'S WORDS REPEATED BY PROTESTERS: LAW EXPERT

"What we have all done in the past two years as governments is violate guaranteed chartered rights and freedoms," he stated.

But a constitutional law professor says that simply is not true.

"No absolutely not, and no court has said so," said Eric Adams, with the University of Alberta.

"Those limitations are completely consistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which has a section which explicitly allows the government to reasonably limit rights and freedoms."

Adams believes Kenney’s characterization of public health measures is not only inaccurate, it's risky too.

"The premier has repeatedly invoked the idea that the Charter has either been suspended or infringed or violated by governments, and that rhetoric has showed up in protests that are blocking roads and our bridges, clogging downtown Ottawa," Adams said.

He added that the limitations imposed by pandemic rules have been challenged several times by religious groups in Alberta, B.C., Ontario and Manitoba, but judges have ruled against them every time.

Many of Kenney's MLAs agreed with him that restrictions needed to go. Several have shared social media posts demanding that, and at least two have participated in truck protests against vaccine mandates.

On the same day that Kenney announced the end of Alberta's proof-of-vaccine program, his health minister seemed to soften the government's stance on the possibility of bringing restrictions back.

"We will take action when necessary to alleviate (hospital) pressure in future waves or spikes," Jason Copping said.

But Adams warns that if the stricter COVID-19 measures are needed again in the future, Kenney's recent statements have created even more challenges for any government trying to justify them.

"If the next variant is killing people more than Omicron has, the premier has told his province that public health restrictions are bad, and how do you govern in a world where you might need those very restrictions?" he wondered.

With files from CTV News Edmonton's Chelan Skulski