Legislation introduced in Alberta has prompted the resignation of two provincially appointed board members from the Alberta Law Foundation. These members vacated their positions in protest of a proposed bill which they argue constitutes political interference in the delivery of legal assistance to vulnerable individuals.
The contentious bill seeks to authorize Justice Minister Mickey Amery with the power to have the final say on grants exceeding $250,000, administered by the foundation to community legal clinics and researchers. This decision-making authority has raised concerns about the potential impact on the foundation’s autonomy.
Notably, the Alberta Law Foundation relies on interest generated from lawyers’ trust accounts to fund approximately 65 non-profit service providers annually, rather than receiving direct government funding. In a resignation letter, Seun Ogunsola expressed fears that this legislative change would erode the foundation’s independence and compromise its mission. He voiced concern that the bill presents a significant threat to the organizations supported by the foundation and the Albertans who depend on their legal services.
Moreover, the foundation has reported that some grant applications have already been rejected or approved at reduced amounts under Minister Amery’s oversight.
The Impact on Legal Aid and Community Services
The proposed legislation could have far-reaching implications for community legal services and vulnerable populations in Alberta. By placing grant approval in the hands of the Justice Minister, there is concern that political considerations may overshadow the needs and priorities of those requiring legal assistance.
This shift in control could result in less funding for community legal clinics, potentially limiting their capacity to provide essential services. Vulnerable groups, including low-income individuals and those facing legal challenges, might experience reduced access to legal aid. The legislation could also discourage collaboration and innovation among service providers, as they may become more cautious in their advocacy and program development, fearing unfavorable decisions based on political rather than merit-based criteria.
