Alberta Politics

[policyenthusiast]

In case anyone isn't familiar:

Bill 10: Provincial regulators can no longer mandate Canadian work experience. This change helps with Foreign Credential Recognition (FQR), obstacles with which result in us bringing doctors and engineers to Canada where they work as Uber drivers. Puts citizenship and health care numbers on drivers licenses.

Bill 11: Makes citizens renew their health care cards, and holders of expired cards may be charged for services. Some advocates are speculating that this is to block low-income and homeless residents from medical care. (I know the least about this one, I'm sure there are more notable changes)

Bill 13: Provincial regulators can no longer punish licensees for "off-duty conduct." Some people are concerned that this will further perpetuate hate speech.

Here's more.

 

[ChazYEG]

This is not the Third World, where if certain groups don't agree with the results of an election they use whatever procedural tricks they can in order to engineer a different outcome.

I don't agree with recall legislation at all, at any level.

First of all, it's an attempt to change the results of an election. We have elections at both the provincial and the municipal level every four years. THAT'S the time we get to make a change. Attempting to recall city council members or MLAs who were democratically elected flies in the face of the principle in this country that we respect the will of the voters, as expressed in a free and fair election. It's not only hooligans storming the U.S. Capitol who have an undemocratic agenda of overturning the will of the electorate, it's also people using the recall system to fiddle with the results of a settled election here at home.

Want a do-over? You get one every four years.

The other big problem with recall legislation is that it can make political leaders gun-shy about tackling controversial issues or major structural change, for fear of sparking a mid-term recall drive that could cost them their seats.

The contract we have in Canadian society is that every four years, the public has a right to choose its governing leaders for the next term. The elections are free and fair and run by a neutral government agency (not overseen by the politicians themselves, as are many elections in the U.S.) And when the returns come in, the public agrees to abide by the result of that election, and not attempt to overturn it mid-term.

1 - the whole "third world" thing is incredibly arrogant, not to say borderline racist. This whole "we're better than they are" mentality should have no place in any discussions regarding democracy. If anything, in the past few years, examples of "third world" countries having more solid institutions and democratic processes than some "first world" are plenty, especially in Latin America. I say with absolute confidence that countries like Brazil and Chile are, today, far more democratic than the US or South Korea (and Alberta, to be very honest).

2 - The reasons for these recalls are not minor inconveniences and harmless laws that some people don't like. It is mainly about the indiscriminate use of their majority status to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause and force ANYHING they want, as much as it might not have popular support, and basically rule like a dictatorship. If Danielle Smith and the UCP can use the Notwithstanding Clause like this, whenever they want to pass something that THEY KNOW will be challenged in the courts (which, you guessed, is part of the democratic process too), where does it stop? They still have another year and a half in government, and the precedent being opened here is such that they can dismantle and fundamentally change things in the province in a way we might not be able to go back.

3 - The bar for a recall is very high, and should it be triggered it is a substantial sign of lost of confidence by the constituents in that representative. The same way a Prime Minister or a Premier might suffer a non-confidence vote, why can't an MP or MLA? Especially with our "first past the post" system, where most of the time the representative is elected with far less votes than a majority (which is abysmal and should not be a thing).

 

[TravellingChris]

1 - the whole "third world" thing is incredibly arrogant, not to say borderline racist. This whole "we're better than they are" mentality should have no place in any discussions regarding democracy. If anything, in the past few years, examples of "third world" countries having more solid institutions and democratic processes than some "first world" are plenty, especially in Latin America. I say with absolute confidence that countries like Brazil and Chile are, today, far more democratic than the US or South Korea (and Alberta, to be very honest).

2 - The reasons for these recalls are not minor inconveniences and harmless laws that some people don't like. It is mainly about the indiscriminate use of their majority status to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause and force ANYHING they want, as much as it might not have popular support, and basically rule like a dictatorship. If Danielle Smith and the UCP can use the Notwithstanding Clause like this, whenever they want to pass something that THEY KNOW will be challenged in the courts (which, you guessed, is part of the democratic process too), where does it stop? They still have another year and a half in government, and the precedent being opened here is such that they can dismantle and fundamentally change things in the province in a way we might not be able to go back.

3 - The bar for a recall is very high, and should it be triggered it is a substantial sign of lost of confidence by the constituents in that representative. The same way a Prime Minister or a Premier might suffer a non-confidence vote, why can't an MP or MLA? Especially with our "first past the post" system, where most of the time the representative is elected with far less votes than a majority (which is abysmal and should not be a thing).

It's intellectually lazy to infer racism on a fellow member's part, simply because you don't agree with their argument--not to mention a violation of the forum rules. Be careful throwing that term around.

In many countries in the Third World, we are seeing governments abuse their power by throwing their political opponents in jail and/or fiddling with the results of democratic elections. It's happened in Brazil, with both Bolsonaro and Lula having been jailed at various times and Rousseff removed from power on a flimsy pretext. Other examples of political opponents being jailed or election results being meddled with include Venezuela (repeatedly), Peru, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Thailand, Egypt and more.

The time to take action against Danielle Smith's government was in the 2023 election. Attempting to overturn the results of the 2023 election through the recall system now is anything but democratic. The ultimate goal of the recall drive, of course, is to remove enough UCP members and replacing them in byelections in order to remove the UCP from power. That's an attempt to overturn the results of a general election simply because certain people don't like the results.

Under the Canadian system, majority governments can pass legislation according to their policy goals, subject to constitutional guardrails. Again, if you don't agree with UCP policies the time to stop them was in the 2023 election. Perhaps the UCP's opponents should work harder next time.

The argument that the first past the post system "should not be a thing" is valid but that is an argument for changing the electoral system. It is not an excuse for attempting to overturn the results of an election in which Albertans expressed a clear choice.

 

[Glenco]

As William Shakespeare would say “Hoist with his own petard “

 

[ChazYEG]

It's intellectually lazy to infer racism on a fellow member's part, simply because you don't agree with their argument--not to mention a violation of the forum rules. Be careful throwing that term around.

It is extremely arrogant to adopt the superiority complex discourse, and yes, it borders on racism, especially when you single out "third world" but make no mention of the kind of systematic dismantling of the democratic institutions in the US, or the widely known oligarchical structure of South Korea, or the continuous use of the Notwithstanding Clause by the UCP in Alberta as examples of democratic erosion. It's not a matter of not agreeing with your argument, it is about the fact that the whole "third world" argument is arrogant and offensive, and as someone born in one of these countries, I reserve the right of feeling just as offended by it as you for being called out on it.

It's happened in Brazil, with both Bolsonaro and Lula having been jailed at various times and Rousseff removed from power on a flimsy pretext

Bolsonaro was not jailed multiple times, only once, now, after being given all of his constitutional guarantees of a fair trial and ample defense. He was convicted by the countries Supreme Court in face of a mountain of evidence of his attempted coup d'etat. Lula was arrested once, and his conviction was overturned, but until such time as proof of his innocence came to light, him and everyone else, respect the rule of law. The reasoning for Rouseff's impeachment was questionable, but the procedure which resulted in it wasn't.

The time to take action against Danielle Smith's government was in the 2023 election. Attempting to overturn the results of the 2023 election through the recall system now is anything but democratic. The ultimate goal of the recall drive, of course, is to remove enough UCP members and replacing them in byelections in order to remove the UCP from power. That's an attempt to overturn the results of a general election simply because certain people don't like the results.

Under the Canadian system, majority governments can pass legislation according to their policy goals, subject to constitutional guardrails. Again, if you don't agree with UCP policies the time to stop them was in the 2023 election. Perhaps the UCP's opponents should work harder next time.

In 2023 the UCP had not abused the Charter and, until they did it, with the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, not once but twice in the span of a month, there was no talk about recall. They are abusing their position in power to an unprecedented degree, and the continuous use of the only constitutional clause that basically overrules any chance of dispute by the people is the most undemocratic thing possible. If they can invoke the clause for anything they want, because it is their policy goal, what is there to stop them from using it to impose anything on us, in spite of any Charter protections?

 

[TravellingChris]

It is extremely arrogant to adopt the superiority complex discourse, and yes, it borders on racism, especially when you single out "third world" but make no mention of the kind of systematic dismantling of the democratic institutions in the US, or the widely known oligarchical structure of South Korea, or the continuous use of the Notwithstanding Clause by the UCP in Alberta as examples of democratic erosion. It's not a matter of not agreeing with your argument, it is about the fact that the whole "third world" argument is arrogant and offensive, and as someone born in one of these countries, I reserve the right of feeling just as offended by it as you for being called out on it.



Bolsonaro was not jailed multiple times, only once, now, after being given all of his constitutional guarantees of a fair trial and ample defense. He was convicted by the countries Supreme Court in face of a mountain of evidence of his attempted coup d'etat. Lula was arrested once, and his conviction was overturned, but until such time as proof of his innocence came to light, him and everyone else, respect the rule of law. The reasoning for Rouseff's impeachment was questionable, but the procedure which resulted in it wasn't.


In 2023 the UCP had not abused the Charter and, until they did it, with the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, not once but twice in the span of a month, there was no talk about recall. They are abusing their position in power to an unprecedented degree, and the continuous use of the only constitutional clause that basically overrules any chance of dispute by the people is the most undemocratic thing possible. If they can invoke the clause for anything they want, because it is their policy goal, what is there to stop them from using it to impose anything on us, in spite of any Charter protections?

It's baffling that you either do not see or choose to ignore the fact that the erosion of democratic rights is much more prevalent in the Third World than in the First. Note that we are not seeing election results being overturned or political opponents being jailed in Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Australia, Japan, New Zealand or other First World countries but we are seeing it in the Third World.

It's also worth noting that while we are seeing significant numbers of people from the Third World claiming political asylum in EU countries, Canada, Australia and the United States, we are seeing few if any from the First World claiming political asylum in Third World nations. Do you know of any Albertans who have claimed political asylum in, say, South Africa or Brazil because they find the UCP government oppressive?

The comment about the "oligarchical structure" in South Korea is pointless as it has no legal bearing. It is neither illegal nor anti-democratic for large, successful businesses to operate in a given country. A number of industries in Canada, particularly banking, have been likened to oligarchies as well.

I never said Bolsonaro was jailed "multiple times". I included him in a list of Brazilian politicians whose treatment has been questionable. Both he and Lula have been jailed at certain times.

Again, you're defending attempts to overturn of the results of a democratic election because you don't agree with them. Would you agree if the NDP had won the 2023 election and UCP supporters were attempting to change the results of the election by launching recall drives in NDP-held ridings? Or would you insist that the NDP had won election fairly and had a right to carry out its mandate and that recall drives were the antithesis of democracy?

 

[David A]

Not a huge fan as I can see the doctors who are greedy working more in the private sector and eventually abandoning their practice to make as much $$$ as possible over working in the private sector.

Alberta conservatives have always been eager to sneak in more private care one way or another and really this is just another, the latest, ploy.

I feel where this will fall apart is how it generally does. First, public opinion realizes that it means better care only for those who can pay for it and worse for those who can not, secondly this comes into conflict with Federal health care funding laws.

Now, Smith doesn't seem to care about public opinion as much as her predecessors, although after a few recall campaigns perhaps she might. She also doesn't generally seem to care about the Feds, but Alberta really can not afford to do without Federal health care funding now, especially given current low oil prices.

 

[Whattagame]

Someone in this thread doesn't remember the Battle of 66th Street.

With or without recall legislation, if you trample on people's rights enough, action will be taken. Apparently for some, people getting run over by buses is preferable peaceful, legal, and democratic processes.

 

[ChazYEG]

I included him in a list of Brazilian politicians whose treatment has been questionable

There was absolutely nothing questionable about his treatment. His arrest was precede by over 1 year of open, highly publicized investigation by the Federal Police, his indictment and trial followed every single proper legal procedure, he was given ample rights to defend himself, a fair trial and the right to an appeal.

The comment about the "oligarchical structure" in South Korea is pointless as it has no legal bearing. It is neither illegal nor anti-democratic for large, successful businesses to operate in a given country. A number of industries in Canada, particularly banking, have been likened to oligarchies as well.

Democratic processes and their failure are not only about legal issues. Large successful businesses operating in a country is a normal and positive thing, however having large businesses continuously interfering directly in government and policy decisions, with recurring cases of corruption involving high echelons of government and top executives, judges, prosecutors, etc, is definitely not a mark of good democracy.

It is interesting that you also conveniently avoided the topic of the US descent into authoritarianism that the entire world is watching. From the Gestappo-like ICE raids, to the consistent attacks by their leader on free speech (including media and ). I could go on this topic, but if you can't see it already, you won't.

Do you know of any Albertans who have claimed political asylum in, say, South Africa or Brazil because they find the UCP government oppressive?

Albertans, maybe not, but Brazil has received a number of asylum seekers from other countries, including a small, but still shocking and symbolic, number of Americans in 2025.

It is baffling that you refuse to acknowledge how undemocratic the UCP's actions are, simply steamrolling the Charter with the Notwithstanding Clause because they are afraid of having their policies contested in higher courts. This is not a matter of simple policy disagreement, it is about the fact that we have a provincial government willing to rule by decree, bypassing constitutional guardrails by using a clause that was designed to be a last resort, nuclear option to pass legislation where the Provincial government sees the Federal going against the province's interests. If they are willing to invoke that clause so casually, as they have done in the past month, this is a slippery slope, and at this point it would not shock me if they used it to dismantle the public healthcare system in the province, to impose legislation that could help perpetuate them in power or even to secede from Canada altogether.

 

[ChazYEG]

Again, you're defending attempts to overturn of the results of a democratic election because you don't agree with them. Would you agree if the NDP had won the 2023 election and UCP supporters were attempting to change the results of the election by launching recall drives in NDP-held ridings? Or would you insist that the NDP had won election fairly and had a right to carry out its mandate and that recall drives were the antithesis of democracy?

If the NDP had been elected and was making the same kinds of attacks on democracy the UCP is I would be first in line to sign recall petitions for my MLA.
Also, I don't see how a process that involves collecting tens of thousands or individual signatures, then triggers AN ELECTION is undemocratic. If the recall simply meant giving the seat to the opposing party with no byelection, sure. But the UCP could still run candidates (maybe different ones) and win. an MLA being recalled does not mean an automatic seat flip towards the NDP.

 

[Gus Haynes]

Under the Canadian system, majority governments can pass legislation according to their policy goals, subject to constitutional guardrails. Again, if you don't agree with UCP policies the time to stop them was in the 2023 election. Perhaps the UCP's opponents should work harder next time.

This is such a sadly limited view of democracy. Democracy is not just an exercise of voting once every four years. There are a variety of democratic mechanisms to hold incumbents accountable and pressure change, ranging from letter-writing to public protest. The UCP has elected to add another mechanism, and people should feel free to use it, just as the UCP feels free to use the notwithstanding clause whenever it amuses them.

 

[Gronk!]

'Forever Canadian' petition verified as successful by Elections Alberta​

About 13.6% of electors signed petition​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/forever-canada-petition-9.6999279

A citizen initiative petition to make it official policy for Alberta to stay in Canada has been verified as successful by Elections Alberta.

The Alberta Forever Canada petition, also known as the "Forever Canadian" petition, needed 293,976 signatures to be successful. Elections Alberta said the petition had 438,568 valid signatures counted and 404,293 verified signatures after a random statistical sampling method was applied with a 95 per cent confidence level.

The Forever Canadian petition was launched to counter Alberta separatists who want a referendum on the province's independence.

The petition, launched by former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk asks: "Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?"

Elections Alberta said it's estimated about 13.6 per cent of electors in the province signed the petition.

While the petition could trigger a referendum, Lukaszuk has previously said that his goal is to have Premier Danielle Smith call the petition's question in the legislature and have MLAs vote on it.

A copy of the petition's policy proposal was submitted Monday to the Speaker of the legislature, Elections Alberta said in a news release.

Elections Alberta said since the legislature is sitting, legislation requires the Speaker to bring the proposal before the assembly and within 10 sitting days, the government will have the proposal referred to a legislative committee.

The committee can either table a report on the policy proposal or table a report recommending it go to a referendum.

If a referendum is recommended, it must be held on or before the fixed date of the next provincial general election, which is Oct. 18, 2027.

CBC News reached out to Justice Minister Mickey Amery’s office about what next steps the government might take now that the petition has been verified as successful.

“We congratulate the group on gathering so many signatures in support of remaining in Canada,” Amery said in an emailed statement.

“Now that the petition has been verified, caucus and cabinet will discuss how to proceed under the legislation.”

 

[Airboy]

Nice to see the verified number so high.

 

[Gronk!]

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith latest target of an MLA recall campaign | Globalnews.ca

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, the MLA for the riding of Brooks-Medicine Hat, appears to be the latest UCP MLA in the province to face a recall campaign

globalnews.ca

 

[EtoV]

I'm sure a lot of people will blame the parents, but from talking to some teacher friends, the large class sizes is also causing issues by creating a bad environment for learning, with too many kids to control, and behavioral issues that don't have any resources allocated to those kids.

Underfunding education creates a feedback loop of bad outcomes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-schools-chronic-absenteeism-9.6997358