The 2025 Alberta Municipal Elections
Get it right, or else!
Just like you could count on the Kenney government’s COVID briefings to start late, you can rely on a Smith government announcement to deliver everything that was leaked in advance to Rick Bell, plus a few surprises. And they’re never nice surprises…
True to form, today’s announcement of changes to the Municipal Government Act gave us political parties for the two big cities. And then so much more.
Here’s a quick rundown on the highlights, and some initial thoughts
Municipal Political Parties
In the two big cities, which have stubbornly refused to elect conservative-minded Mayors, we will now have political parties. I’ve already written a bit about this, so I won’t say much here.
The one thing that surprised me about the announcement is that, after signaling that this was coming for months, the government has not established the regulations that will govern this. Now they’re going to consult, and the process for registering political parties, managing candidates’ access to the ballot and other details won’t be released until the end of the calendar year. This more or less guarantees a year of chaos as various groups try to figure out if they’re going to form a party and, if they are, how they are going to select their candidates.
Corporate and Union Contributions
In the name of “transparency” the government is inviting corporations and unions back into the game, allowing them to donate up to $5000 directly to candidates each election. The rationale offered was that these organizations were participating as third party advertisers (true) and the legislation governing them was a mess (also true). But it was certainly possible to clean up this mess without letting corporations and unions give money to candidates.
Instead, these rules appear set to increase the influence of corporations and lessen the influence of unions. The $5000 maximum contribution that applies to both groups looks fair on the surface. But in reality, its impact will be asymmetrical. There are a relatively small number of unions, and a huge number of corporations. The $5000 maximum will apply equally to a union representing 30,000 workers as it will to a Mom & Pop corner store. And there are lots of corner stores, developers, home builders and others that will be ready and willing to pony up $5K.
And if the voters get it wrong…
Big brother has given himself clear authority to set things right. The province can now direct a municipality to amend or rescind a bylaw. (Someone might want to ask if the province would overturn Calgary’s zoning bylaw currently under review).
The province can fire an elected councilor or Mayor if cabinet believes it is in “the public interest” to do so. Or they can require the municipality to hold a vote, some kind of referendum to decide whether to fire an elected official.
In his news conference, Municipal Affairs Minister McIvor emphasized that these are powers that would only be used in exceptional circumstances, as a last resort. But there’s nothing in the legislation that limits these powers, so we are relying on the provincial government’s restraint.
Conservatives who are comfortable with this approach should consider a scenario like this one: It’s 2030. Premier Nenshi today announced that the province would require that Medicine Hat hold a vote to determine whether its controversial Take-Back-Alberta endorsed Mayor should be removed from office after championing a by-law that banned pride sidewalks. The province also directed Medicine Hat Council to rescind the bylaw. To be clear, it would be troubling if a Premier Nenshi did this, just as it would be troubling if Premier Smith demanded a vote on whether Jyoti Gondek should be removed from office because she championed a zoning bylaw the province didn’t like.
The Big Picture
Taken together with Bill 18, which would prevent municipalities from engaging directly with the federal government, this bill is part of a concerted effort to diminish the autonomy of municipalities in Alberta and squash progressive politics in the province.
Why would I bother voting in municipal elections if the province can easily decide that my vote doesn’t matter?
It seems to me that the provincial government is sovereign, and that the authority delegated to municipalities (regional districts, &c) derives from the sovereign government. Is there some sort of contractual law or licence that prevents the provincial government from doing whatever it wants with municipal authority. What’s sometimes called ‘social-’ or ‘political-licence’ applies to what is impolitic and what isn’t in the general understanding of the public—the voting public, especially. I’ve said this before: Danielle Smith’s (and David Parker’s) UCP doesn’t do normal politics —not even normal (internal) party politics, and has shown, consistently, that it feels it doesn’t have to or, put another way, will do whatever it wants whether it’s politic or not. I suppose one might ask that if the governing UCP cocks a snook at the federal government and the Constitution, it shouldn’t come as any surprise it will do so with its own citizens—and that might include stacking the electoral deck by, for example, “asymmetrical” party-donation rules that favour the partisan right (or, in the TABCUP’s case, the far-right).
It would seem Smith (& Parker) haven’t a politcal bone in their heads—certainly not a psephological one. Which comes to my second point: if the BATCUP gooberment should happen to replace a city councillor it doesn’t like—and as daring as that might seem I wouldn’t put it past them—and, presumably substitutes one it likes better (unless, of course, the subtraction of one supposedly “leftie” councillor effectively gives the right-wing councillors the government does like the majority vote without having to substitute anybody), how likely is that to work in the government’s favour? Never mind blatant attacks on democracy, never mind UPTCAB hypocrisy, what about the “Freedumbites”? Like I said, they ain’t got a single political or psephological bone among them.
That aside, I take it that the government has all the sovereignty it needs to do what it wants with authorities that derive from it, and damn the political brimstone that results. As long’s it doesn’t offend Canadian law—say, substitute or disqualify councillors or candidates on a basis the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits—ethnicity, gender, religion, &c—then, as stupid as it would be, the government does have that kind of sovereign authority over municipalities.
It’s almost as if the UPCTAB government thinks it can achieve some irrevocable, irreversible thing that serves its purpose even without getting re-elected. But, lordie-lord!—that doesn’t leave much time to get whatever it is done, but plenty of time for a firestorm of civic resentment to blow up.
What Smith et al seem to be aiming for is some kind of trusteeship, not a democracy. And thereby paint themselves into a corner. It’s galling and hard to understand for us from away.
Thnx for your coverage.