Kristin Raworth: The UCP's petulant power grab

The Alberta government is a big believer in jurisdiction - until it meets a big city border.

Calgary City Hall, not to be confused with the Alberta legislature.

By: Kristin Raworth

If Premier Danielle Smith and the United Conservative Government had one defining “raison d’être,” it would be their defiance of Ottawa and continued jurisdictional fights with the Liberal government.

This is so strongly felt that the UCP recently introduced legislation, Bill 18: The Provincial Priorities Act, meant to ensure that all federal funding that flows into the province — whether that be to municipalities or post-secondary institutions — must be approved by the province. The premier herself lovingly deems this the “Get Out of My Backyard Bill,” pointedly noting that the prime minister should do his job and let her do hers.

With this in mind, all irony truly died on April 25th when the provincial government introduced Bill 20: the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act. This bill will undermine municipal independence, and allow the province to very much play in a political backyard that ain’t theirs.

(Full disclosure, I am an executive advisor to an Edmonton city councillor and previously also worked for current Mayor Amarjeet Sohi when he was a city councillor. I am presently on sick leave and my commentary here is my own, informed by my experience.)

Alberta does not currently have formal municipal parties. Last year, rumours began to swirl that this was about to change. Shortly after the UCP won its first mandate under Premier Danielle Smith, the Municipal Governance Act (MGA), was one of the first pieces of legislation slated for review. Councillors in municipalities across Alberta began to receive word that the UCP was looking to mirror jurisdictions like Vancouver, which have slates or political parties in their municipal elections.

It’s true that over the past few municipal election cycles political parties have become increasingly informally involved in municipal elections in Alberta. They’ve offered campaign support and endorsements to politically aligned candidates. This has been the case on both the right and the left. It has not been an issue raised by constituents as something of concern, nor has there been much political will to set up municipal political parties. So the question remains, and seemingly has yet to be asked of the UCP, what is problem they are seeking to solve with this legislation?

Over the weekend, Ric McIver, Minister of Municipal Affairs, did the national news circuit to defend the bill. In a series of somewhat combative interviews, the minister was asked why the UCP was bringing in the bill despite over 70 per cent of Albertans saying they don’t want the introduction of political parties at the municipal level. McIver sidestepped that question by saying they would “see how this goes in Edmonton and Calgary.”

To me, the motivation is clear. Both cities have traditionally elected more progressive leaning mayors. A partisan system with looser fundraising rules could be used to tip the scales in favour of more conservative mayors and councillors. It’s an egregious and unnecessary shift in the balance of power. That said, this bill would not be getting this reaction if it were solely introducing political parties. It is much more.

There are several potential pieces of massive overreach, which, not to get to policy nerd, won’t be resolved until after the bill passes and the regulations to support the bill are developed. But for starters, the law seeks to grant the province the ability to slap down municipal bylaws.

For those unfamiliar with the ongoing provincial and municipal infighting, this provision can be tied to Calgary’s decision to issue their own single-use bylaws, which added a $.15 charge to paper bags and limited how many plastic forks and napkins restaurants could hand out. The rule evoked a passionate response from Calgarians, who roundly rejected the change. Smith herself lambasted the bylaw and asked her minister at the time if the provincial legislature could undo it.

But, as reviled as it was, there was no need for the province to step in. The bylaw was just struck down in Calgary. This piece of the legislation almost seems personal, as if specifically designed to reign in Alberta’s left-leaning big cities. The premier is simply seeking the ability to more easily override municipal voters when cities do something she or her base doesn’t like.

When defending the legislation, McIver repeatedly pointed to the decision made by Edmonton City Council to maintain a mask bylaw after the province removed its own restrictions. McIver said Bill 20 doesn’t change much: the province can already strike down bylaws, though it must vote to do so in the legislature. I struggle to see what bylaws could be so life altering as to merit recalling the legislature, but to my mind I would rather a vote in the house than an Order in Council released on a Friday afternoon.

Yet Bill 20 would seek to give the provinces even more control over municipal affairs.

The province wants the right to remove any city councillor from office if they deem removal to be in the “public interest.” Again, understanding the origin of this change requires some history. During the last municipal election, it was revealed that Calgary City Councillor Sean Chu, who was previously a Calgary police officer, was found to have inappropriate contact with a minor, prompting demands that he be removed from office by the province.

Again, McIver defended Bill 20 by insisting that the province already has the power to can city councillors. This will of course come as a surprise to Albertans, given that McIver himself claimed in 2021, at the height of the Chu controversy, that the minister actually lacked the authority to remove him.

I would ask Conservatives cheering this idea own to imagine it if it was being introduced by the opposition. Do they want an NDP government deciding what specific city councillors should be allowed to keep their job, in the “public interest?”

Bill 20 goes on to ban vouching — which would allow voters who do not have valid ID to mark their ballot, provided another voter vouches for their identity —and electronic voting tabulators. To the cynic in me, this appears to be red meat to a base convinced that election results they do not like must not be real.

Most crucially, Bill 20 reveals the province to be fundamentally hypocritical. One moment, they want the feds to leave them alone and respect their jurisdiction. On the other, they show a consistent pattern of refusing to respect the jurisdiction of municipalities, and a fundamental disrespect to the general public who have consistently shown they do not want these changes. If there is one thing Conservative leaders ought to have learned by now, it is to respect the autonomy and cantankerousness of Albertans. This can be channelled against the province as easily as it can be wielded against the feds.

---

The Line is entirely reader funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today.

---

The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something:  lineeditor@protonmail.com