Bill 31 rewrites parts of the Alberta Evidence Act to treat oaths and affirmations as functionally equivalent, allow presiding officers to direct affirmations, permit a witness to hold any text or object tied to their beliefs, and — importantly — create a court-controlled electronic certification pathway that is deemed equivalent to an affidavit or sworn deposition. The bill also expands the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act’s protected list to include public hospitals, continuing care homes, mental‑health facilities, ambulances and other emergency health facilities, and it adds a catch‑all for prescribed health‑related sites.
Separately, the bill increases the number of proposed electoral divisions the Electoral Boundaries Commission must draw from 87 to 89 and recasts the list of considerations for boundary‑making. It also amends the Public’s Right to Know Act to let the Minister require data and information from specific public bodies (government departments, municipalities and several types of police services) when no data‑sharing agreement exists or the agreement lacks the needed information.
Each change has practical consequences for courts, health operators, local governments and the Commission — and creates questions about administrative burden, access, and rights that will be resolved in regulations and practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces sections of the Alberta Evidence Act to equate oaths and affirmations, authorizes presiding officers to direct affirmations, and adds a court-managed electronic certification mechanism that is deemed to carry the same legal effect as an oath, affidavit or declaration. It expands the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act’s list to cover key health facilities and emergency medical services. It raises the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s proposed divisions from 87 to 89 and narrows/clarifies the factors the Commission must consider. It gives the Minister under the Public’s Right to Know Act the authority to require specified public bodies to provide data for reports, and creates regulation‑making authority about format and timing.
Who It Affects
Directly affected actors include courts and litigants (witnesses, deponents), Alberta’s Court of Appeal, Court of King’s Bench and Court of Justice (which may designate electronic systems), health operators and regulated health professionals (hospitals, continuing care homes, mental‑health facilities, ambulances), municipalities and regional/municipal/independent police services (subject to data requests), and the Electoral Boundaries Commission (now tasked with 89 proposed divisions).
Why It Matters
The Evidence Act changes modernize and standardize how testimony and sworn information are handled — bringing electronic processes and religious‑neutral practices into statute. Expanding protected infrastructure to include health services shifts the legal perimeter around protests and interference with health delivery. Granting the Minister data‑compulsion powers centralizes information collection for government reporting and shifts compliance costs to local public bodies. The electoral change alters the baseline for redistribution and the Commission’s mandate for weighing representation factors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill overhauls how Alberta treats oaths and affirmations. It repeals earlier sections and replaces them with language that simply allows a person to choose an oath or an affirmation and states both have the same legal force.
The new text explicitly permits a person taking an oath to hold any text or object appropriate to their religious or spiritual belief, and it adds a clear statutory power for a presiding officer to require a person to affirm when choice is not possible or when administering an oath consistent with the person’s beliefs is not reasonably practicable. Those changes remove older religion‑specific phrasing and consolidate the law around personal belief and procedural practicality.
The bill also creates a statutory route for electronic certification of documents and information to courts. It lets an individual who would otherwise provide an affidavit, declaration or deposition certify information through an electronic system established or designated by an Alberta court and in accordance with court procedures.
When certified through that court system, the certification is treated as equivalent to an oath, affidavit, affirmation or declaration taken in Alberta before a commissioner for oaths. The court—not the statute—keeps control of the technical procedures by designating the electronic system and setting the rules for certification.Under the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act the bill adds explicit health‑sector entries to the list of protected infrastructure: public hospitals and chartered surgical facilities, continuing care homes, facilities designated under the Mental Health Act, ambulances and dispatch centres, and buildings or mobile facilities used by regulated health professionals to provide health services.
It also permits regulations to prescribe other items. That re‑specification narrows and clarifies what qualifies as protected infrastructure in the health‑service context.On electoral matters, the bill raises the Commission’s baseline from 87 to 89 proposed electoral divisions and reshapes the statutory list of “relevant considerations” the Commission must apply.
The revised list emphasizes effective representation and explicitly names sparsity, density, growth rates, communities of interest (including municipalities and Indigenous settlements), geographic features, and transport and communication access, while leaving room for other factors the Commission considers appropriate. Finally, the Public’s Right to Know Act amendments allow the Minister to require specified public bodies to deliver data and information needed to prepare reports when no agreement exists or an agreement is insufficient; the Act also authorizes regulations on the type, format, method and timing for that data.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces old oath provisions and declares an oath and an affirmation to be of the same legal force.
It gives presiding officers explicit authority to direct a person to affirm when choice is unavailable or an oath in a form consistent with beliefs is not reasonably practicable.
Courts may establish electronic systems for individuals to certify documents and information; certification through such a court system is deemed equivalent to an affidavit, oath, affirmation or declaration taken in Alberta.
The Critical Infrastructure Defence Act’s protected list is expanded to name public hospitals, chartered surgical facilities, continuing care homes, mental‑health facilities, ambulances and dispatch centres, and facilities used by regulated health professionals.
The Minister may require data and information from government departments, municipalities, and regional/municipal/independent police services for report preparation when no data‑sharing agreement exists or is insufficient; regulations may set format and timing.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Modernize oaths and affirmations; remove religion‑specific formalities
Sections 14 to 17 are repealed and reinserted to streamline oath law: anyone required or permitted to swear may either take an oath or affirm, and both carry the same effect. The new text drops older, religion‑specific prescriptions and permits witnesses to use any text or object appropriate to their beliefs when taking an oath. That simplifies courtroom practice and reduces reliance on archaic ceremonial language, while preserving the binding character of a solemn undertaking.
Presiding officer can direct affirmation
Section 17.1 gives a presiding officer—defined as a person lawfully able to administer an oath or affirmation—power to direct a person to affirm where the person cannot reasonably choose between oath or affirmation or where administering an oath consistent with beliefs is impracticable. The section also clarifies that an affirmation given at the presiding officer’s direction retains full legal validity. Practically, this reduces procedural disputes about a witness’s competence or religious objections by placing a clear administrative tool in the hands of the court or tribunal.
Court‑designated electronic certification is deemed equivalent to affidavits
Section 18.1 authorizes courts to establish or designate electronic systems for certifying documents and information. An individual who would otherwise make an affidavit or deposition may certify through such a system under court procedures, and that certification is treated as an oath, affidavit, affirmation or declaration taken in Alberta before a commissioner for oaths. The statute ties legal equivalence to the court’s control of the electronic procedure, not to a generic electronic signature standard; it therefore shifts technical implementation and procedural safeguards to court rules and systems.
Adds health‑sector facilities and services to protected infrastructure
The Act’s definition of essential infrastructure gains several specific entries: public hospitals and chartered surgical facilities, continuing care homes, facilities designated under the Mental Health Act, ambulances and dispatch centres, and buildings or mobile facilities used by regulated health professionals to provide health services. The amendment also creates a regulation slot to prescribe additional items. This makes the health‑service perimeter explicit for purposes of offences and protections under the Act and limits ambiguity about whether emergency health delivery sites fall within the statute’s coverage.
Two operational changes: 89 proposed divisions; Minister’s data‑compulsion power
The Commission must now propose 89 electoral divisions rather than 87 and follows an updated list of relevant considerations emphasizing effective representation, population sparsity/density/growth, communities of interest (explicitly listing municipalities and Indigenous settlements), geography, and transport/communication. Separately, the Public’s Right to Know Act gains a new section that allows the Minister, subject to regulations, to require data from specified public bodies (government branches, municipalities, and certain police services) when no agreement exists or an agreement lacks the necessary information; regulations may dictate format and timing. Together these changes alter administrative workloads for boundary redrawing and central reporting.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Court users and non‑religious witnesses — They gain clearer statutory recognition that affirmations are equal to oaths and may use texts or objects matching their beliefs, reducing religious‑formality disputes and exclusionary practices.
- Alberta courts and tribunals — Court authorities can designate electronic certification systems and direct affirmations, giving them procedural tools to streamline admissions, reduce paper affidavits, and resolve competence or religious‑objection issues quickly.
- Health system administrators and emergency services — Being named in the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act gives hospitals, continuing care homes, mental‑health facilities and ambulance services an explicit statutory shield; that can facilitate law‑enforcement protection and quicker legal remedies against interference.
- Government report authors and policy units — The Minister’s ability to compel data from departments, municipalities and police services should improve data completeness for provincial reports and policy analysis, removing gaps where voluntary agreements are absent.
- Electoral stakeholders and communities of interest — The Commission’s new mandate and expanded list of considerations gives explicit statutory cover to account for growth, sparsity and Indigenous and regional interests when proposing 89 divisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Municipalities and police services — They face new compliance obligations to gather, format and deliver data on ministerial demand; this creates administrative costs, IT work and potential legal tensions over scope and confidentiality.
- Health operators and facilities — Inclusion as protected infrastructure can mean heightened security expectations, possible limits on lawful protest activity nearby, and operational coordination with enforcement — all of which can impose costs.
- Courts and justice system IT units — Courts must design, certify and safeguard electronic systems for court‑level certification; this requires investment in technology, procedures, and cybersecurity measures.
- Legal practitioners and registrars — Law firms, commissioners for oaths and court clerks must update forms, affidavit practices and client instructions to reflect electronic certification and new affirmation procedures, imposing transitional compliance work.
- Electoral Boundaries Commission and local administrations — Preparing for two additional proposed divisions, plus applying the revised considerations, will require data refreshes, mapping work and stakeholder consultation resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The statute aims to modernize and strengthen administrative and protective regimes — making court processes technologically up to date, shielding health delivery from interference, and centralizing data for reporting — but in doing so places procedural and civil‑liberties trade‑offs in the hands of courts, regulators and administrators: improved efficiency and protection on one hand, and concentrated authority, potential privacy tensions, and narrower spaces for protest and community representation on the other.
The bill trades clarity and modernization for new implementation questions. Treating electronic certification as equivalent to an in‑person affidavit concentrates important evidentiary and authenticity questions in court systems: courts will need robust identity‑verification, audit trails, and cross‑jurisdictional rules to ensure a certified electronic statement is reliable in contested proceedings.
The statute delegates these technical choices to courts, which shifts the burden of specifying safeguards from the Legislature to judicial administration and creates a period of uncertainty while systems and rules are built.
Expanding the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act to cover health facilities and ambulances resolves prior ambiguity about whether obstruction of health services counted as protected interference, but it also intensifies the tension between safeguarding essential services and protecting lawful protest and assembly around public institutions. The statutory list is explicit, but enforcement practice and prosecutorial discretion will determine how closely protections curtail proximity protests.
Similarly, the Minister’s new power to compel data centralizes reporting capacity but raises privacy and governance questions: which statutory limits and privacy frameworks (including provincial privacy law and police disclosure rules) apply, and how will the Minister’s requests interact with collective bargaining, policing confidentiality, or municipal autonomy? Those questions are left largely to regulations and intergovernmental practice.
Finally, the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s change to 89 proposed divisions and its revised factors recalibrates redistribution mechanics. The new phrasing broadens permissible considerations but removes some earlier language about preserving existing municipal boundaries ‘‘wherever possible’’ in cities; that increases discretion but may heighten disputes over community representation.
Across the bill, meaningful effects will therefore flow from secondary instruments (court procedures, regulations and administrative practice) rather than from statutory text alone, creating an implementation phase that will determine real‑world impact.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.