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.
Well, the last time an Alberta government tried this kind of thing the Lt. Gov. stood in their way by requesting a legal review of the proposed legislation. When the Premier the appointed himself a Justice Minister and ordered the bills be signed, the Lt. Gov. went to the Federal court for a ruling. As a result the province declared war on the Lt. Gov., cut off his funding, and drove him and his family out of the official residence (there is no residence for Alberta Lt. Gov. to this very day), but in the end the review declared the laws to be beyond the scope of a Province to enact.
So, we still have the right to appeal to the Federal government, or to the Crown directly. That's how our system works. The job of the Crown and his appointed representatives in the Canadian system is not to create laws, but to question them, and if there is an impasse, to decide what is right and best for the country. It's a good system, especially if someone tries to co-opt it.
The process of successively establishing a system of control over all aspects of a society to stifle opposition. Ninety years ago this had a name. It was called Gleichschaltung.
We can conclude the the large corporations in support of Smith have a open plate to turn the munipalities in conservatism. When Smith was elected none of this was campaigned on. Additionally if Smith would stop fighting with Ottawa this would have never come to this. Lastly if transfers coming from Ottawa were put towards what it was meant for this would never come to this.
Thanks Lisa. This move again appears to be all about power & control, not focussing on moving the province forward economically or socially. Democracy in 'President' Smith's Alberta is looking like a distant memory.
"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."
They know exactly what they're going to do, but are giving their compatriots a head start while their opponents will have far less time to plan for the upcoming municipal elections.
No more academic research freedom at universities. The ability to now identify and then fire mayors that represent an opposing party. The ability of the premier, not the constitution nor the Supreme Court, to decide what legislation is constitutional. Kinda feels a little like Fascism.
Indeed it does. And the process has a name. Gleichschaltung - the process of successively establishing a system of control over all aspects of a society to stifle opposition.
Developing control is a major step towards authoritarian government. Managing who is on council with basically whims deciding, same with bylaws Smith doesn't like .all u councilors now have a big brother, and watch out for. Public interest meaning does the UCP approve of u.
Hm. Well, I am someone who grew up in Alberta and have been living in Toronto for the past thirty years. I have been through all the extremely harmful provincial interference with local government in GTA. The bad precedent is set, we are starting to see this kind of thing all over Canada now.
It all comes from the false idea that the provinces do whatever they want with municipal governments. This is really a legal fiction. That is not what the people who wrote BNA act intended. Provinces having jurisdiction over municipalities does not mean they do what they want with them.
It is time people noticed that in 1867 the population was mostly rural. Now most of us live in big cities. Jurisdictional boundaries and divisions of powers from that time no longer make sense. We need to copy arrangements from most urbanized countries, where cities above a certain size become provinces/states/lander/prefectures/departements, etc.
There is a significant “Province of Toronto” movement but there are huge efforts to silence it. The politics around it are incredibly complicated. It could fill up several blogs. I will do so one of these days but there is so damned much to blog about.
By the way, mine is at https://adultsincharge.blog/ I get much fewer subscribers than Lisa does and she seems to think I am poaching her people. But, not really.
Back to the problems of cities and provincial interference with them. Some people in Toronto concoct these complicates schemes in which Toronto would be given a ‘charter’ by the federal government. It is unlikely to happen because in requires Provincial cooperation. If T.O. left Ontario most of the GTA would follow and that is half of Ontario. So the rest of Ontario will resist to the end.
However, I have a much simpler solution. Just draw up a written constitution for the province, something which should have been done long ago. This would spell out the powers of local governments in a way yahoo governments cannot mess with. This could make GTA a de facto province.
This actually should not be so hard to bring about. Unfortunately, it will be until the dysfunction gets so bad that there is no choice but to do it. It requires getting ‘confrontational’ with the forces of immobilism.
The same applies in Alberta. Contrary to the ideas Albertans have about themselves, they are also reluctant to challenge the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is extra nasty/crazy there.
The upshot of it is that cities like Calgary and Edmonton need to acquire provincial powers. The legacy provinces need to shrink back.
These kinds of changes to the existing system are not going to come about through it. They will be forced from an outside position. You know what I mean.
This is very disturbing, and very scary. Under the UCP, we are having an authoritarian rule, and a dictatorship. Bill 8 is a starting point. What this bill does, ties into other bills the UCP made. Bill 8 alters the gift limit amounts MLAs in Alberta can get, which increases them. Dark money, and bribes is a distinct possibility. Bill 8 also renders the Alberta Ethics Commissioner powerless, so they cannot investigate MLAs who do nefarious activities, before a provincial election in Alberta. Bill 18, is also about control and micromanagement. Another one of these bills, Bill 20, allows corporations and unions to donate to municipal candidates, which is also a concern. The NDP banned union and corporate donations to political parties in Alberta, but the UCP reinstated the latter. There is also clear interference in municipal affairs with Bill 20, by the UCP. It's actually a revenge move on Edmonton and Calgary for not endorsing the UCP in Edmonton, and not entirely endorsing the UCP in Calgary, during the last provincial election in Alberta. This is very appalling.
Ever read the Koch brothers plan to take over the USA. Same plan different country. Try reading James Buchanan's Koch plan . And they have implemented REAGANOMICS and are well along with the takeover
I'll oblige you Ken, starting with my assessment that when you say "respectfully," methinks thou doth protest too much, because despite the word "civil" being the root word of "civilization" as we have known it (which in the before times made it an integral part of Canadian politics, ah those were the good old days) Pierre Poilievre has made short work of that. Now it's just another thing to hit the libtards over the head with, smirking the whole time, bad boy style, Poilievre's specialty.
In light of that, I often wonder if more "mature" conservatives are experiencing some sort of mid-life crisis when they continue with a party that has gone from being generally respectable, i.e. the PC's, to one called the "cons." Not even con "artists," just "cons" straight up. Obviously this nickname comes from the inherent deceit and outright lies that have become the political trademark of the political right wing and prompted a new, nostalgic slogan for their famous Trump hats, "Make lying wrong again."
Meanwhile, they have coined several new words and phrases to embroider the dishonesty like fake news, misinformation, disinformation, and alternative facts, and which side is unscrupulous enough to actually use "deep faking" again.
Hard to argue the continuing self-immolation of the mentor for the CPC, the once Grand Old Party on screens everywhere as we speak. Who in their right mind sees a future for civilization (never mind democracy) as we have know it with THAT? Talk about no leg to stand on, and on top of it they're anti-science! We all recall Harper muzzling scientists, one of the early spanners in the works brought to us with a smirk by this disastrous Reform iteration of conservatism that's more like a religious cult than a political party.
It's why there's a consensus that the right wing has lost its mind and this time it's not "only in America."
Tris, you start by arguing that I am not really being respectful and you then go on to find ways to argue against various groups, very much including conservatives and you go on to use various pejorative terms.
By contrast, I - respectfully, you will recall - simply noted that I disagreed with Lisa's take on the issue. I made no comments to slam anyone of different opinions.
So, I - again, respectfully - ask whether you have been more or less respectful about opinions different than yours than was I?
I thought that this forum was for folks to express - respectfully, to be sure - their thoughts. Is it your thought that I should only express my thoughts if they agree with Lisa or with your thoughts? Hmmm.... Perhaps we wouldn't need elections then as you and your assemblage could simply tell me what I think, or perhaps more correctly, what I SHOULD think.
The curiosity for me is that Lisa's column was in opposition to political parties at the municipal level and one of the arguments offered against those political parties is that it would result in divisions, that it would make municipal politics "partisan." I already find municipal politics quite, quite partisan so I do not perceive that municipal political parties would accelerate such a difference. Oh, and, by the way, is not your response - based on my assumed political leanings - partisan? Oh, my! Petard. Hoist. And all that.
Bottom line remains--Conservatives are gamers so the ends justify the means, including all those variations on lying that I mentioned. With the help of social media, your party has single-handedly ruined our politics, and are gunning for democracy itself. With such extreme methods, the politics are now binary, and it turns out the right has never been more wrong.
So being "non-partisan" is indeed pure affectation at this point, as is any insistence on being "respectful." Destroying our institutions is as disrespectful as it gets so it's absurd to insist on respect based on who your party USED to be. We're in a pitched, cultural battle as a result of Trumpism, and you know it, which also makes you guys copycats btw, wannabe insurrectionists. It's embarrassing actually because many Canadians have always distinguished themselves by NOT being American.
Lisa's right, you're wrong, period; she knows more than you do, something conservatives simply can NOT accommodate we've noticed, especially when education is attached to it.
Apparently 70% of Albertans agree with her, as with keeping the CPP, separating from Canada, privatizing health care, that climate change is real, etc. etc.
Tris Pargeter: Danielle Smith and the UCP are power hungry zealots. They are trying to stifle opposition in any way they can. Their policies don't have a lot of support, and they want to ram them through. The APP, open pit coal mining, and the provincial police force have not much support, but the UCP don't care. They never campaigned on these things, and here we are. The UCP wants to have a one party state, and authoritarian, heavy handed rule. It is quite disturbing, and very scary.
Thank you Lisa, as always. The comments I intended have already been made clearly and succinctly by Messrs Squire and Davis on April 25. Premier Smith has not only announced herself officially the Wicked Witch of the West, she has embraced the role in her heavy-handed lurch to acquire the power so she can return the province to its dark ages..
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.
Well, the last time an Alberta government tried this kind of thing the Lt. Gov. stood in their way by requesting a legal review of the proposed legislation. When the Premier the appointed himself a Justice Minister and ordered the bills be signed, the Lt. Gov. went to the Federal court for a ruling. As a result the province declared war on the Lt. Gov., cut off his funding, and drove him and his family out of the official residence (there is no residence for Alberta Lt. Gov. to this very day), but in the end the review declared the laws to be beyond the scope of a Province to enact.
So, we still have the right to appeal to the Federal government, or to the Crown directly. That's how our system works. The job of the Crown and his appointed representatives in the Canadian system is not to create laws, but to question them, and if there is an impasse, to decide what is right and best for the country. It's a good system, especially if someone tries to co-opt it.
Liked because you forced me to look up "psephological". :D Also for "gooberment".
It seems to me the province may already have power to remove councillors, but maybe the lawyers would know.
The process of successively establishing a system of control over all aspects of a society to stifle opposition. Ninety years ago this had a name. It was called Gleichschaltung.
Thanks Lisa. Makes the NDP leadership contest and a premier Nenshi critical.
We can conclude the the large corporations in support of Smith have a open plate to turn the munipalities in conservatism. When Smith was elected none of this was campaigned on. Additionally if Smith would stop fighting with Ottawa this would have never come to this. Lastly if transfers coming from Ottawa were put towards what it was meant for this would never come to this.
Thanks Lisa. This move again appears to be all about power & control, not focussing on moving the province forward economically or socially. Democracy in 'President' Smith's Alberta is looking like a distant memory.
"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."
They know exactly what they're going to do, but are giving their compatriots a head start while their opponents will have far less time to plan for the upcoming municipal elections.
One ring to rule them all ! Has Smith been reading Lord of the Rings again? Excellent analysis, Lisa!!!!!
"And in the darkness bind them."
While I am not opposed to less progressive politics, I do find providing prov with capacity to remove an elected official troubling
No more academic research freedom at universities. The ability to now identify and then fire mayors that represent an opposing party. The ability of the premier, not the constitution nor the Supreme Court, to decide what legislation is constitutional. Kinda feels a little like Fascism.
Indeed it does. And the process has a name. Gleichschaltung - the process of successively establishing a system of control over all aspects of a society to stifle opposition.
Paul Squires. That's exactly what this is. What's sickening, is how people defend it. Unfortunately, there are people who do defend this.
Developing control is a major step towards authoritarian government. Managing who is on council with basically whims deciding, same with bylaws Smith doesn't like .all u councilors now have a big brother, and watch out for. Public interest meaning does the UCP approve of u.
Good writing as usual Lisa
Hm. Well, I am someone who grew up in Alberta and have been living in Toronto for the past thirty years. I have been through all the extremely harmful provincial interference with local government in GTA. The bad precedent is set, we are starting to see this kind of thing all over Canada now.
It all comes from the false idea that the provinces do whatever they want with municipal governments. This is really a legal fiction. That is not what the people who wrote BNA act intended. Provinces having jurisdiction over municipalities does not mean they do what they want with them.
It is time people noticed that in 1867 the population was mostly rural. Now most of us live in big cities. Jurisdictional boundaries and divisions of powers from that time no longer make sense. We need to copy arrangements from most urbanized countries, where cities above a certain size become provinces/states/lander/prefectures/departements, etc.
There is a significant “Province of Toronto” movement but there are huge efforts to silence it. The politics around it are incredibly complicated. It could fill up several blogs. I will do so one of these days but there is so damned much to blog about.
By the way, mine is at https://adultsincharge.blog/ I get much fewer subscribers than Lisa does and she seems to think I am poaching her people. But, not really.
Back to the problems of cities and provincial interference with them. Some people in Toronto concoct these complicates schemes in which Toronto would be given a ‘charter’ by the federal government. It is unlikely to happen because in requires Provincial cooperation. If T.O. left Ontario most of the GTA would follow and that is half of Ontario. So the rest of Ontario will resist to the end.
However, I have a much simpler solution. Just draw up a written constitution for the province, something which should have been done long ago. This would spell out the powers of local governments in a way yahoo governments cannot mess with. This could make GTA a de facto province.
This actually should not be so hard to bring about. Unfortunately, it will be until the dysfunction gets so bad that there is no choice but to do it. It requires getting ‘confrontational’ with the forces of immobilism.
The same applies in Alberta. Contrary to the ideas Albertans have about themselves, they are also reluctant to challenge the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is extra nasty/crazy there.
The upshot of it is that cities like Calgary and Edmonton need to acquire provincial powers. The legacy provinces need to shrink back.
These kinds of changes to the existing system are not going to come about through it. They will be forced from an outside position. You know what I mean.
Happy May day, everyone.
This is very disturbing, and very scary. Under the UCP, we are having an authoritarian rule, and a dictatorship. Bill 8 is a starting point. What this bill does, ties into other bills the UCP made. Bill 8 alters the gift limit amounts MLAs in Alberta can get, which increases them. Dark money, and bribes is a distinct possibility. Bill 8 also renders the Alberta Ethics Commissioner powerless, so they cannot investigate MLAs who do nefarious activities, before a provincial election in Alberta. Bill 18, is also about control and micromanagement. Another one of these bills, Bill 20, allows corporations and unions to donate to municipal candidates, which is also a concern. The NDP banned union and corporate donations to political parties in Alberta, but the UCP reinstated the latter. There is also clear interference in municipal affairs with Bill 20, by the UCP. It's actually a revenge move on Edmonton and Calgary for not endorsing the UCP in Edmonton, and not entirely endorsing the UCP in Calgary, during the last provincial election in Alberta. This is very appalling.
Ever read the Koch brothers plan to take over the USA. Same plan different country. Try reading James Buchanan's Koch plan . And they have implemented REAGANOMICS and are well along with the takeover
Just to be clear, I respectfully - note, I said RESPECTFULLY - disagree with Lisa's take on this proposed legislation.
Let the slams against me commence.
I'll oblige you Ken, starting with my assessment that when you say "respectfully," methinks thou doth protest too much, because despite the word "civil" being the root word of "civilization" as we have known it (which in the before times made it an integral part of Canadian politics, ah those were the good old days) Pierre Poilievre has made short work of that. Now it's just another thing to hit the libtards over the head with, smirking the whole time, bad boy style, Poilievre's specialty.
In light of that, I often wonder if more "mature" conservatives are experiencing some sort of mid-life crisis when they continue with a party that has gone from being generally respectable, i.e. the PC's, to one called the "cons." Not even con "artists," just "cons" straight up. Obviously this nickname comes from the inherent deceit and outright lies that have become the political trademark of the political right wing and prompted a new, nostalgic slogan for their famous Trump hats, "Make lying wrong again."
Meanwhile, they have coined several new words and phrases to embroider the dishonesty like fake news, misinformation, disinformation, and alternative facts, and which side is unscrupulous enough to actually use "deep faking" again.
Hard to argue the continuing self-immolation of the mentor for the CPC, the once Grand Old Party on screens everywhere as we speak. Who in their right mind sees a future for civilization (never mind democracy) as we have know it with THAT? Talk about no leg to stand on, and on top of it they're anti-science! We all recall Harper muzzling scientists, one of the early spanners in the works brought to us with a smirk by this disastrous Reform iteration of conservatism that's more like a religious cult than a political party.
It's why there's a consensus that the right wing has lost its mind and this time it's not "only in America."
Tris, you start by arguing that I am not really being respectful and you then go on to find ways to argue against various groups, very much including conservatives and you go on to use various pejorative terms.
By contrast, I - respectfully, you will recall - simply noted that I disagreed with Lisa's take on the issue. I made no comments to slam anyone of different opinions.
So, I - again, respectfully - ask whether you have been more or less respectful about opinions different than yours than was I?
I thought that this forum was for folks to express - respectfully, to be sure - their thoughts. Is it your thought that I should only express my thoughts if they agree with Lisa or with your thoughts? Hmmm.... Perhaps we wouldn't need elections then as you and your assemblage could simply tell me what I think, or perhaps more correctly, what I SHOULD think.
The curiosity for me is that Lisa's column was in opposition to political parties at the municipal level and one of the arguments offered against those political parties is that it would result in divisions, that it would make municipal politics "partisan." I already find municipal politics quite, quite partisan so I do not perceive that municipal political parties would accelerate such a difference. Oh, and, by the way, is not your response - based on my assumed political leanings - partisan? Oh, my! Petard. Hoist. And all that.
Bottom line remains--Conservatives are gamers so the ends justify the means, including all those variations on lying that I mentioned. With the help of social media, your party has single-handedly ruined our politics, and are gunning for democracy itself. With such extreme methods, the politics are now binary, and it turns out the right has never been more wrong.
So being "non-partisan" is indeed pure affectation at this point, as is any insistence on being "respectful." Destroying our institutions is as disrespectful as it gets so it's absurd to insist on respect based on who your party USED to be. We're in a pitched, cultural battle as a result of Trumpism, and you know it, which also makes you guys copycats btw, wannabe insurrectionists. It's embarrassing actually because many Canadians have always distinguished themselves by NOT being American.
Lisa's right, you're wrong, period; she knows more than you do, something conservatives simply can NOT accommodate we've noticed, especially when education is attached to it.
Apparently 70% of Albertans agree with her, as with keeping the CPP, separating from Canada, privatizing health care, that climate change is real, etc. etc.
Tris Pargeter: Danielle Smith and the UCP are power hungry zealots. They are trying to stifle opposition in any way they can. Their policies don't have a lot of support, and they want to ram them through. The APP, open pit coal mining, and the provincial police force have not much support, but the UCP don't care. They never campaigned on these things, and here we are. The UCP wants to have a one party state, and authoritarian, heavy handed rule. It is quite disturbing, and very scary.
We don't care, Ken.
It makes not one whit of difference whether you agree or not. You contribute nothing.
Kimpton Bradford: How anyone can defend this is beyond me. Its not good.
I alway type in ALL CAPS when I’m being respectful.
Thank you Lisa, as always. The comments I intended have already been made clearly and succinctly by Messrs Squire and Davis on April 25. Premier Smith has not only announced herself officially the Wicked Witch of the West, she has embraced the role in her heavy-handed lurch to acquire the power so she can return the province to its dark ages..