I think you miss the fact that the province is legislatively responsible for the municipalities. Correct me if I am wrong - but there are (generally) only two jurisdictional divides constitutionally - federal and provincial - and municipal powers are derived from the province. So the province has a role to play, which the federal government does not. You may not like what they do - and you can argue that their changes are good or bad - but you can't argue that they don't have the jurisdiction to do so.
No one disputes that municipalities are creatures of the province. So what? That doesn't mean the UCP *ought* to be consolidating its power this way. JG
With due respect, the writer did make that distinction and speaks accurately to the Province's jurisdiction. The article was written because of the UCPs choice on interpretation and speaks to the likely risks. We are all potential voters for 3 orders of government and while municipalities are the 'child' of each Province, I still have the democratic right to vote and together we have the right to elect who we want. We are also all taxpayers for 3 orders of government in Canada. The UCP ignores these facts.
First: The proposed legislation (Bill 20: The Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act 2024) does not prevent independent candidates from running or force every candidate to declare a party status where there is none. What it does say is that a slate of candidates cooperating or intending to cooperate should declare as such.
Second: Edmonton and Calgary have had majority block voting happening on Council for some time which occurs regardless of the issue. Voters don't all recognize the presence of an alliance from reading candidates' bio's and campaign literature during an election. However, results following the election speak for themselves. The new legislation intends to shine light on what is already in practice on City Councils (among a number of other issues being tackled). There are already avenues to remove Councillors who contravene laws or commit some other highly offensive behavior while in office - the new legislation simply strengthen this. There is no malign plot to take over or interfere with daily Municipal government machinery.
Third: Most people would agree that he who pays the piper deserves some input. If cities or Minicipalities go into debt they can't pay (no matter what the reason) their sole backstop is the Province. They are not allowed to carry debt. Edmonton's Mayor (a one term federal Cabinet Minister) recently asked the Province for $60 Milliion to clear the City's deficit. Seven of Edmonton's top civic Administrators (including the City Manager) resigned recently in a short period of time. There was recenty a failed attempt to recall Calgary's Mayor. Do you suppose the Province might be a bit alarmed and want to be involved?
Fourth: Strident, prolonged, fact-twisting clamour from the Alberta NDP (or NDP/Liberal coalition) is ongoing, betraying their vested interest in dominating City Councils and in slamming their UCP opponants in prep for the next provincial election.
Why? (1) anonymity is preferred on the mostly urban Councils where they have established their people - has worked well as most Albertans are not that interested in the details of municipal politics (2) they don't want their candidates to have to declare party alliances or funding commonalities.
Immediately after the new legislation was announced, there ensued an ongoing wide, organized letter / article writing campaign and also media is being contacted directly. Encumbents on City Councils are not doing this themselves. They have lots of help from their NDP/Liberal backers. I was surprised when I today saw The Line has become a tool for them. (sorry JG, I know you like to get different viewpoints but I presumed the airing of partisan party politicking was beneath you)
My previous understanding regarding the electoral party situation was that it would allow candidates to state what party they were aligned with, to better inform voters. My understanding was this was in response to people claiming they didn't really understand the political leanings of the various mayor or city councillors elected.
I think that voting in municipal elections suffers from a huge lack of involvement as it is and I've never been one to disbelieve the vote - the truth is more left wing voters get out to vote than right wing voters when it comes to the big cities.
I don't support my city council at all and have seen some really boneheaded decisions that I've been powerless to influence. (I was signed up to present at a city council once on a topic I felt strongly about - the city cancelled the public input when too many people signed up, then did their own thing anyways. So I would disagree that there is already plenty of opportunity to influence city council. I've had the same councilor through many elections and did not vote for him the last election specifically because of direct interactions I've had with him where he clearly felt his job wasn't to reflect constituents but instead was to vote for what "HE believed was best for the city" - that's not what a city councilor is supposed to do - they're supposed to represent the people that elected them.
That being said - I'm not sure this bill is the best way to go about addressing problems with city councilors. BUT I don't share your opinion that there are currently adequate procedures in place. One decision in Calgary being changed by enough people getting upset doesn't prove that the procedures in place always work as intended. And with how Trudeau is going around the province to make deals with cities that it agrees with (I'll note that Sohi is a former liberal MP,) I don't think that reflects well on the cities taking the deals or on Trudeau for offering.
I think we need a real parliamentary system at the local level. As it stands, one has to really research each candidate and most voters won’t - so turnout is low and incumbency high. Most voters at the federal level don’t research the platforms, but a) have some idea what each party stands for and b) knows which one is in government so they can vote for or against it.
Yes - I think this is the real benefit that I could see to having candidates declare an association with a political party. I will continue to vote in municipal elections but definitely feel disgruntled with knowing that my city councilor doesn't take constituent wishes into his own and just votes based on his own beliefs.
Petulant is how the left has behaved, from Notley's debate performance, to Gondek's refusal to attend Hanukkah, to university professors denying their biases. Never mind Raworth's assinine comments online. Not sure this is the kind of analysis fitting of The Line, though I take the point this is just her experience. Just.
I dunno. I figure it's people's right to vote for petulance. Look at our PM :-D. In BC, most city councils are left leaning and tied to the BC NDP. I personally think that municipal politics should not be affiliated with any party and would be irked if any provincial party sought to override municipal decisions. I think a big problem with Canada in general right now is the refusal of the three levels of government to stay in their own lane.
Agreed. In ideal circumstances, they would do so. Unfortunately, I think they have not and are willing to do things that skirt transparency (Calgary's union funded councillors, for example). So Raworth's claim that conservatives should not want this is for a different time, but she isn't bothered to recognize that this legislation is a direct reaction to exactly the point - not staying in lanes, particularly from her co-partisans. So while I in principle I am concerned about overreach potential of every gov't, for now the constitution is clear and I prefer to judge actual actions, not hypotheticals from rabid partisans.
The thing is that according to Canada's constitution we only have two levels of government - federal and provincial. Constitutionally, municipalities are no more a third level of government than hospital boards or school boards.
This is very different from, say, the UK, where municipalities have been political authorities separate from the Crown since the beginning of the Middle Ages if not before.
Municipalities are creatures born of Acts of Provincial Legislation. Some Cities are mired in mission creep ie. social services etc, and these expensive side projects are far sexier than core responsibilities such as roads and sewer mains. Ribbon cutting for a safe consumption site suits the progressive minds that dominate civic administration more than standing beside a road full of pot holes
At the current moment, Albertans have progressive minded citizens who dominate the Edmonton and Calgary city councils. Their politics align with the progressive minds in Ottawa and the Trudeau government loves to do an end run around the nasty “far right” Alberta government to do business and also to work some ideological mischief.
It is foolish for the UPC government to micromanage the city councils in Alberta, but as the duly elected government it has political goals for the Province that should be free of meddling from Ottawa.
The bottom line is that those city councils won elections in those cities, and the UCP did rather poorly or lost those ridings in 2023. If the policies of those city governments don't radiate beyond their borders, the provincial government should get bent and stay out of it. Meanwhile, the Alberta government might want to keep in mind that the federal government actually has a constitutional power of disallowance that would allow them to invalidate whatever legislation the UCP proposes. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I agree with the author. It is certainly hypocritical of the UCP.
My oft-stated position on political parties is that we'd all be better off if they ceased to exist altogether. Rob Breakenridge in his guest-host stint this morning on Corus radio here in Alberta played a clip from Premier Smith from before she became premier, and I subscribe to her view (at that time) that party affiliation and whipped votes are a cancer on the representative/democratic process. I don't always agree with Mr. Breakenridge, but on this one I agree - Premier Smith has completely flipped on this issue, based on the existence of (and her defence of) Bill 20.
However.
I understand the motivations of the UCP here, even if I don't support those motivations.
Currently, in (at least) Alberta's larger urban municipalities, both major parties are quietly funding/supporting candidates without disclosure, and many voters are likely unaware of this. The UCP wants this to be transparent, so they can push their candidates and point out that the other candidates are being pushed by the NDP. Essentially, if I'm charitable to the UCP, they are simply trying to make these races more honest and transparent on who are funding major urban municipal candidates (and who they will be beholden to).
I could likely be convinced to live with this change - but only in Alberta's major cities.
In much smaller urban centres and rural municipalities (such as where I live, work and vote), I think this change would be ruinous, hopelessly politicizing elections which most often (though, I'll admit, not always) deal with more mundane, bipartisan, hyper-local issues. Rural/'Rurban' campaigns will gradually cease to be about these things, and will instead gradually turn into what plagues provincial and federal politics - just another battlefront of the ideological/culture wars - and I want no part of it.
Decentralize, Premier Smith. Decentralize. Give power and autonomy back to Alberta's communities.
I stopped reading at “This bill will undermine municipal independence.” If you don’t understand that municipalities are 100% creations of provincial governments then you really don’t understand the basic powers laid out in the constitution. If you think otherwise, go ask John Tory how independent the Supreme Court ruled Toronto is.
It's interesting that a government that calls itself libertarian, anti red tape and anti regulation seeks protection from its own actions and the actions of others (ranchers and the coal documents, center and left leaning councils) by invoking regulation and legislation. Clearly our maga premier Mrs Moretta seeks to emulate all things republican. Please pack your bags Mrs. Moretta.
Wow! I just finished reading an article in the Tyee by David Climenhaga on the same topic.
This is not good and not an isolated thing. It really is all about diminishing democracy. It's very much out of the current Republican playbook. Did you hear the Republican justices on the US Supreme Court thinking that the President has the right to assassinate his political rivals? I doubt they mean it for a Democratic President. These people don't want to represent voters - they want to rule them and they're all reading from the same script. Poilievre is likely to do the same on the federal level and Stephen Harper is doing it internationally as head of the International "Democratic" Union. That organization is a big supporter of Victor Orban and Modi in India - 2 leaders who are working to smother democracy in their countries. We shouldn't laugh too hard at the MAGA infection in the US because it's here, too. Crooked voting machines? Really? This is a problem in Alberta?
This is a predictable outcome of the populist faction that's taken control of the UCP. Populists tend to assume that governments and institutions have much more power and authority than they really do, and ascribe the fact their preferred outcomes aren't realized to malign motives. Then they get into power, and quickly discover that the world isn't that simple, they don't actually have that much power, and holding the position of authority doesn't compel people to agree with you. The reaction is often a drift towards increasingly authoritarian approaches to force the outcomes they want.
The writer complains that: “This bill will undermine municipal independence, and will allow the province to very much play in a political backyard that ain’t theirs”. But what is the basis for these assertions?
Who says municipalities are “independent” or that they each have their own exclusive “backyard” from which others may be excluded – particularly other legal actors that are constitutionally-rooted in ways that municipalities are not?
Because the Canadian Constitution makes the provincial role in this alleged “backyard”, both clear, and ostensibly, exclusive. Thus section 92 of the BNA Act reads, in part, as follows:
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say…
• Municipal Institutions in the Province.
• Property and Civil Rights in the Province
I make no comment on the particular policies, structures or choices that the writer prefers, other than the obvious one: winning a provincial election has consequences, and among them is the ability to legislate for the whole province and not just for progressive or traditionalist enclaves.
As Torontonians learned when the “megacity” was created in 1995 and in 2018, when the City Council constituencies were reduced from 47 to 25 and had their boundaries rewritten.
A gentle suggestion - perhaps this writer needs a basic civics class to better understand how jurisdictions in Canada actually are supposed to work. As numerous other people have pointed out, provinces are NOT sub-fiefdoms of the federal government, but municipalities exist under the auspices of the provincial government.
I fail to see how introducing political parties into big city elections would somehow magically benefit conservative candidates more than progressive candidates. What it WOULD do is force candidates to say out loud what positions they will take once elected.
Interesting that she left out the example Calgary is currently living through, with a majority on Council having been backed financially by the city workers unions in the past election. Sure, a motivated voter could have dome some research and pieced together that this was a full slate of candidates being put forward as a block - but the candidates themselves certainly didn't go out of their way to enlighten voters to that fact until AFTER they were elected.
In other words, they were a political party without having to SAY they were a political party.
It seems to me that whoever pays the piper should call the tune. Whatever political level is responsible for taxes and spends these funds should control them. Or is that too simple?
On the topic of crooked voting machines the issue is with the crooks who use them not the machines thesmelves
“Who pays the piper” is the taxpayer, regardless of the level of government. So we the people should have control over where the money is spent, or at least know who is making the decisions about how it is being spent. My use of the term we the people IS NOT a nod to politics south of the border but to highlight that it is the fundamental rule for a democracy. Politicians are supposed to work for us. I agree with the intent of a lot of the laws that are passed, it is how the laws are implemented that becomes the problem.
This would all make perfect sense if municipalities had powers in our Constitution, but they don't. They are exclusively in the domain of provinces in our country. In other countries they have cities which have their own exclusive powers, but Canada isn't one of them. Provinces can dissolve cities altogether if they choose. That is our way.
If folks do not like the fact that cities are created and controlled by the provinces, they should advocate for a new addition to our Constitution.
The UCP government of Premier Danielle Smith has revealed itself to be a great advocate of interventionist governance that erodes the rights of individuals and minority collectives. Not a good look, I'm afraid.
What's more, when considered in light of threats he has made to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause (in support of politically advantageous proposals to impose consecutive life sentences on repeat offenders), Pierre Poilievre of the Federal Conservative Party promises to be little better.
In some respects, both Smith and Poilievre seem not to understand that their political gamesmanship essentially signals that they would be willing to boost state power at the expense of the rights of individuals and minority collectives.
Indeed, India's Narendra Modi is also a keen advocate of majoritarianism and revels in amping up populist attacks against individuals and minority collectives deemed to be enemies of his governing Bharatiya Janata Party.
This bodes ill for Canada should Poilievre and his party win big during the next federal election.
I hope that Smith and company fail in their efforts--and that this raises the warinesss of Albertans who have heretofore been too willing to give the UCP the space to play politics and advance agendas that only serve to polarize Alberta.
It’s amazing how Canadians openly fear that Conservatives might “boost state power” at the expense of individual rights and yet the Trudeau government can do the same things out in plain view with little push back.
It’s fair to ask:
What is worse, the invoking of the Emergency Act, which stripped civil rights and froze assets, but revoked without Senate approval, or the fact that a majority of Canadians thought that the EA was a good idea and punishment for a civil disobedience that they disagreed with?
Individual rights belong to everyone. We can’t cherry pick who should have them and who can be “othered” as fair game for discrimination.
The article was about the UCP government's new law, not the Emergencies Act. This is why my comment did not make reference to that issue.
Having said that, I am aware that there have been two judicial assessments of the Trudeau government's invocation of the Act.
One was undertaken in line with a requirement in the legislation that prompted an automatic inquiry into its use (led by Commissioner Paul Rouleau in the fall of 2022). In this case, the commission found that the government's invocation was justified.
Another assessment, issued in the form of a ruling by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley, suggested that there "was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act". The federal government is appealing Mosley's ruling to the Supreme Court.
It is worth reminding Ms. Raworth that one of the candidates currently running to lead the AB NDP has consistently used his workplace position to campaign for that party in previous Provincial elections, as well as to campaign for like minded municipal candidates. I would suggest to her that the horse she is attempting to corral has already left the barn.
I can understand how Ms Raworth would attempt to draw the hypocrisy parallel between the Province and the Feds and two Municipal governments. However, the clear and obvious intrusion by the Trudeau Liberals into Alberta jurisdiction, on many fronts, is cause for Danielle Smith to push back hard. The Province is responsible for Municipal governments. Full stop. The current Edmonton government's approved budget approval of 8.9% clearly demonstrates a complete lack of fiscal awareness, much less competent management. Similar alarms have sounded in Calgary, including an attempted recall of the Mayor.
Both Municipal Council's actions have shown clearly that Provincial oversight is urgently required.
I think you miss the fact that the province is legislatively responsible for the municipalities. Correct me if I am wrong - but there are (generally) only two jurisdictional divides constitutionally - federal and provincial - and municipal powers are derived from the province. So the province has a role to play, which the federal government does not. You may not like what they do - and you can argue that their changes are good or bad - but you can't argue that they don't have the jurisdiction to do so.
No one disputes that municipalities are creatures of the province. So what? That doesn't mean the UCP *ought* to be consolidating its power this way. JG
With due respect, the writer did make that distinction and speaks accurately to the Province's jurisdiction. The article was written because of the UCPs choice on interpretation and speaks to the likely risks. We are all potential voters for 3 orders of government and while municipalities are the 'child' of each Province, I still have the democratic right to vote and together we have the right to elect who we want. We are also all taxpayers for 3 orders of government in Canada. The UCP ignores these facts.
First: The proposed legislation (Bill 20: The Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act 2024) does not prevent independent candidates from running or force every candidate to declare a party status where there is none. What it does say is that a slate of candidates cooperating or intending to cooperate should declare as such.
Second: Edmonton and Calgary have had majority block voting happening on Council for some time which occurs regardless of the issue. Voters don't all recognize the presence of an alliance from reading candidates' bio's and campaign literature during an election. However, results following the election speak for themselves. The new legislation intends to shine light on what is already in practice on City Councils (among a number of other issues being tackled). There are already avenues to remove Councillors who contravene laws or commit some other highly offensive behavior while in office - the new legislation simply strengthen this. There is no malign plot to take over or interfere with daily Municipal government machinery.
Third: Most people would agree that he who pays the piper deserves some input. If cities or Minicipalities go into debt they can't pay (no matter what the reason) their sole backstop is the Province. They are not allowed to carry debt. Edmonton's Mayor (a one term federal Cabinet Minister) recently asked the Province for $60 Milliion to clear the City's deficit. Seven of Edmonton's top civic Administrators (including the City Manager) resigned recently in a short period of time. There was recenty a failed attempt to recall Calgary's Mayor. Do you suppose the Province might be a bit alarmed and want to be involved?
Fourth: Strident, prolonged, fact-twisting clamour from the Alberta NDP (or NDP/Liberal coalition) is ongoing, betraying their vested interest in dominating City Councils and in slamming their UCP opponants in prep for the next provincial election.
Why? (1) anonymity is preferred on the mostly urban Councils where they have established their people - has worked well as most Albertans are not that interested in the details of municipal politics (2) they don't want their candidates to have to declare party alliances or funding commonalities.
Immediately after the new legislation was announced, there ensued an ongoing wide, organized letter / article writing campaign and also media is being contacted directly. Encumbents on City Councils are not doing this themselves. They have lots of help from their NDP/Liberal backers. I was surprised when I today saw The Line has become a tool for them. (sorry JG, I know you like to get different viewpoints but I presumed the airing of partisan party politicking was beneath you)
Then why would they need a bill to wield jurisdictional power
My previous understanding regarding the electoral party situation was that it would allow candidates to state what party they were aligned with, to better inform voters. My understanding was this was in response to people claiming they didn't really understand the political leanings of the various mayor or city councillors elected.
I think that voting in municipal elections suffers from a huge lack of involvement as it is and I've never been one to disbelieve the vote - the truth is more left wing voters get out to vote than right wing voters when it comes to the big cities.
I don't support my city council at all and have seen some really boneheaded decisions that I've been powerless to influence. (I was signed up to present at a city council once on a topic I felt strongly about - the city cancelled the public input when too many people signed up, then did their own thing anyways. So I would disagree that there is already plenty of opportunity to influence city council. I've had the same councilor through many elections and did not vote for him the last election specifically because of direct interactions I've had with him where he clearly felt his job wasn't to reflect constituents but instead was to vote for what "HE believed was best for the city" - that's not what a city councilor is supposed to do - they're supposed to represent the people that elected them.
That being said - I'm not sure this bill is the best way to go about addressing problems with city councilors. BUT I don't share your opinion that there are currently adequate procedures in place. One decision in Calgary being changed by enough people getting upset doesn't prove that the procedures in place always work as intended. And with how Trudeau is going around the province to make deals with cities that it agrees with (I'll note that Sohi is a former liberal MP,) I don't think that reflects well on the cities taking the deals or on Trudeau for offering.
I think we need a real parliamentary system at the local level. As it stands, one has to really research each candidate and most voters won’t - so turnout is low and incumbency high. Most voters at the federal level don’t research the platforms, but a) have some idea what each party stands for and b) knows which one is in government so they can vote for or against it.
Yes - I think this is the real benefit that I could see to having candidates declare an association with a political party. I will continue to vote in municipal elections but definitely feel disgruntled with knowing that my city councilor doesn't take constituent wishes into his own and just votes based on his own beliefs.
Sounds like your councillor is Carra
Well thought-out comment.
Petulant is how the left has behaved, from Notley's debate performance, to Gondek's refusal to attend Hanukkah, to university professors denying their biases. Never mind Raworth's assinine comments online. Not sure this is the kind of analysis fitting of The Line, though I take the point this is just her experience. Just.
I dunno. I figure it's people's right to vote for petulance. Look at our PM :-D. In BC, most city councils are left leaning and tied to the BC NDP. I personally think that municipal politics should not be affiliated with any party and would be irked if any provincial party sought to override municipal decisions. I think a big problem with Canada in general right now is the refusal of the three levels of government to stay in their own lane.
Agreed. In ideal circumstances, they would do so. Unfortunately, I think they have not and are willing to do things that skirt transparency (Calgary's union funded councillors, for example). So Raworth's claim that conservatives should not want this is for a different time, but she isn't bothered to recognize that this legislation is a direct reaction to exactly the point - not staying in lanes, particularly from her co-partisans. So while I in principle I am concerned about overreach potential of every gov't, for now the constitution is clear and I prefer to judge actual actions, not hypotheticals from rabid partisans.
The thing is that according to Canada's constitution we only have two levels of government - federal and provincial. Constitutionally, municipalities are no more a third level of government than hospital boards or school boards.
This is very different from, say, the UK, where municipalities have been political authorities separate from the Crown since the beginning of the Middle Ages if not before.
No, it's exactly fitting of the line, as it rejects bullshit and that's precisely what Bill 20 is full of.
Municipalities are creatures born of Acts of Provincial Legislation. Some Cities are mired in mission creep ie. social services etc, and these expensive side projects are far sexier than core responsibilities such as roads and sewer mains. Ribbon cutting for a safe consumption site suits the progressive minds that dominate civic administration more than standing beside a road full of pot holes
At the current moment, Albertans have progressive minded citizens who dominate the Edmonton and Calgary city councils. Their politics align with the progressive minds in Ottawa and the Trudeau government loves to do an end run around the nasty “far right” Alberta government to do business and also to work some ideological mischief.
It is foolish for the UPC government to micromanage the city councils in Alberta, but as the duly elected government it has political goals for the Province that should be free of meddling from Ottawa.
The bottom line is that those city councils won elections in those cities, and the UCP did rather poorly or lost those ridings in 2023. If the policies of those city governments don't radiate beyond their borders, the provincial government should get bent and stay out of it. Meanwhile, the Alberta government might want to keep in mind that the federal government actually has a constitutional power of disallowance that would allow them to invalidate whatever legislation the UCP proposes. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I agree with the author. It is certainly hypocritical of the UCP.
My oft-stated position on political parties is that we'd all be better off if they ceased to exist altogether. Rob Breakenridge in his guest-host stint this morning on Corus radio here in Alberta played a clip from Premier Smith from before she became premier, and I subscribe to her view (at that time) that party affiliation and whipped votes are a cancer on the representative/democratic process. I don't always agree with Mr. Breakenridge, but on this one I agree - Premier Smith has completely flipped on this issue, based on the existence of (and her defence of) Bill 20.
However.
I understand the motivations of the UCP here, even if I don't support those motivations.
Currently, in (at least) Alberta's larger urban municipalities, both major parties are quietly funding/supporting candidates without disclosure, and many voters are likely unaware of this. The UCP wants this to be transparent, so they can push their candidates and point out that the other candidates are being pushed by the NDP. Essentially, if I'm charitable to the UCP, they are simply trying to make these races more honest and transparent on who are funding major urban municipal candidates (and who they will be beholden to).
I could likely be convinced to live with this change - but only in Alberta's major cities.
In much smaller urban centres and rural municipalities (such as where I live, work and vote), I think this change would be ruinous, hopelessly politicizing elections which most often (though, I'll admit, not always) deal with more mundane, bipartisan, hyper-local issues. Rural/'Rurban' campaigns will gradually cease to be about these things, and will instead gradually turn into what plagues provincial and federal politics - just another battlefront of the ideological/culture wars - and I want no part of it.
Decentralize, Premier Smith. Decentralize. Give power and autonomy back to Alberta's communities.
I stopped reading at “This bill will undermine municipal independence.” If you don’t understand that municipalities are 100% creations of provincial governments then you really don’t understand the basic powers laid out in the constitution. If you think otherwise, go ask John Tory how independent the Supreme Court ruled Toronto is.
It's interesting that a government that calls itself libertarian, anti red tape and anti regulation seeks protection from its own actions and the actions of others (ranchers and the coal documents, center and left leaning councils) by invoking regulation and legislation. Clearly our maga premier Mrs Moretta seeks to emulate all things republican. Please pack your bags Mrs. Moretta.
Your comment inspired me to donate to UCP.
Good for you Tony. Even I have to say I've wasted my money in frivolous purchases in the past.
It's not a waste when it's for the future of the place
Wow! I just finished reading an article in the Tyee by David Climenhaga on the same topic.
This is not good and not an isolated thing. It really is all about diminishing democracy. It's very much out of the current Republican playbook. Did you hear the Republican justices on the US Supreme Court thinking that the President has the right to assassinate his political rivals? I doubt they mean it for a Democratic President. These people don't want to represent voters - they want to rule them and they're all reading from the same script. Poilievre is likely to do the same on the federal level and Stephen Harper is doing it internationally as head of the International "Democratic" Union. That organization is a big supporter of Victor Orban and Modi in India - 2 leaders who are working to smother democracy in their countries. We shouldn't laugh too hard at the MAGA infection in the US because it's here, too. Crooked voting machines? Really? This is a problem in Alberta?
This is a predictable outcome of the populist faction that's taken control of the UCP. Populists tend to assume that governments and institutions have much more power and authority than they really do, and ascribe the fact their preferred outcomes aren't realized to malign motives. Then they get into power, and quickly discover that the world isn't that simple, they don't actually have that much power, and holding the position of authority doesn't compel people to agree with you. The reaction is often a drift towards increasingly authoritarian approaches to force the outcomes they want.
The writer complains that: “This bill will undermine municipal independence, and will allow the province to very much play in a political backyard that ain’t theirs”. But what is the basis for these assertions?
Who says municipalities are “independent” or that they each have their own exclusive “backyard” from which others may be excluded – particularly other legal actors that are constitutionally-rooted in ways that municipalities are not?
Because the Canadian Constitution makes the provincial role in this alleged “backyard”, both clear, and ostensibly, exclusive. Thus section 92 of the BNA Act reads, in part, as follows:
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say…
• Municipal Institutions in the Province.
• Property and Civil Rights in the Province
I make no comment on the particular policies, structures or choices that the writer prefers, other than the obvious one: winning a provincial election has consequences, and among them is the ability to legislate for the whole province and not just for progressive or traditionalist enclaves.
As Torontonians learned when the “megacity” was created in 1995 and in 2018, when the City Council constituencies were reduced from 47 to 25 and had their boundaries rewritten.
A gentle suggestion - perhaps this writer needs a basic civics class to better understand how jurisdictions in Canada actually are supposed to work. As numerous other people have pointed out, provinces are NOT sub-fiefdoms of the federal government, but municipalities exist under the auspices of the provincial government.
I fail to see how introducing political parties into big city elections would somehow magically benefit conservative candidates more than progressive candidates. What it WOULD do is force candidates to say out loud what positions they will take once elected.
Interesting that she left out the example Calgary is currently living through, with a majority on Council having been backed financially by the city workers unions in the past election. Sure, a motivated voter could have dome some research and pieced together that this was a full slate of candidates being put forward as a block - but the candidates themselves certainly didn't go out of their way to enlighten voters to that fact until AFTER they were elected.
In other words, they were a political party without having to SAY they were a political party.
This legislation would correct that.
It seems to me that whoever pays the piper should call the tune. Whatever political level is responsible for taxes and spends these funds should control them. Or is that too simple?
On the topic of crooked voting machines the issue is with the crooks who use them not the machines thesmelves
“Who pays the piper” is the taxpayer, regardless of the level of government. So we the people should have control over where the money is spent, or at least know who is making the decisions about how it is being spent. My use of the term we the people IS NOT a nod to politics south of the border but to highlight that it is the fundamental rule for a democracy. Politicians are supposed to work for us. I agree with the intent of a lot of the laws that are passed, it is how the laws are implemented that becomes the problem.
This would all make perfect sense if municipalities had powers in our Constitution, but they don't. They are exclusively in the domain of provinces in our country. In other countries they have cities which have their own exclusive powers, but Canada isn't one of them. Provinces can dissolve cities altogether if they choose. That is our way.
If folks do not like the fact that cities are created and controlled by the provinces, they should advocate for a new addition to our Constitution.
The UCP government of Premier Danielle Smith has revealed itself to be a great advocate of interventionist governance that erodes the rights of individuals and minority collectives. Not a good look, I'm afraid.
What's more, when considered in light of threats he has made to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause (in support of politically advantageous proposals to impose consecutive life sentences on repeat offenders), Pierre Poilievre of the Federal Conservative Party promises to be little better.
In some respects, both Smith and Poilievre seem not to understand that their political gamesmanship essentially signals that they would be willing to boost state power at the expense of the rights of individuals and minority collectives.
Indeed, India's Narendra Modi is also a keen advocate of majoritarianism and revels in amping up populist attacks against individuals and minority collectives deemed to be enemies of his governing Bharatiya Janata Party.
This bodes ill for Canada should Poilievre and his party win big during the next federal election.
I hope that Smith and company fail in their efforts--and that this raises the warinesss of Albertans who have heretofore been too willing to give the UCP the space to play politics and advance agendas that only serve to polarize Alberta.
It’s amazing how Canadians openly fear that Conservatives might “boost state power” at the expense of individual rights and yet the Trudeau government can do the same things out in plain view with little push back.
It’s fair to ask:
What is worse, the invoking of the Emergency Act, which stripped civil rights and froze assets, but revoked without Senate approval, or the fact that a majority of Canadians thought that the EA was a good idea and punishment for a civil disobedience that they disagreed with?
Individual rights belong to everyone. We can’t cherry pick who should have them and who can be “othered” as fair game for discrimination.
The article was about the UCP government's new law, not the Emergencies Act. This is why my comment did not make reference to that issue.
Having said that, I am aware that there have been two judicial assessments of the Trudeau government's invocation of the Act.
One was undertaken in line with a requirement in the legislation that prompted an automatic inquiry into its use (led by Commissioner Paul Rouleau in the fall of 2022). In this case, the commission found that the government's invocation was justified.
Another assessment, issued in the form of a ruling by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley, suggested that there "was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act". The federal government is appealing Mosley's ruling to the Supreme Court.
It is worth reminding Ms. Raworth that one of the candidates currently running to lead the AB NDP has consistently used his workplace position to campaign for that party in previous Provincial elections, as well as to campaign for like minded municipal candidates. I would suggest to her that the horse she is attempting to corral has already left the barn.
Who is Kristin Raworth?
I can understand how Ms Raworth would attempt to draw the hypocrisy parallel between the Province and the Feds and two Municipal governments. However, the clear and obvious intrusion by the Trudeau Liberals into Alberta jurisdiction, on many fronts, is cause for Danielle Smith to push back hard. The Province is responsible for Municipal governments. Full stop. The current Edmonton government's approved budget approval of 8.9% clearly demonstrates a complete lack of fiscal awareness, much less competent management. Similar alarms have sounded in Calgary, including an attempted recall of the Mayor.
Both Municipal Council's actions have shown clearly that Provincial oversight is urgently required.