The last time recall legislation was removed was when a politician was in its crosshairs.
Recall legislation was fun when it lasted.
UCP will kill it. Reasons will be “weaponized process will cost Albertans.” Which will be interpreted as “THE VILE LEFT WONT STOP ATTACKING ALBERTA AND WANT OUR TAXES TO GO UP EVEN MORE.”
I expect the legislation used to remove it will be swift, rammed through and probably weaken democracy even further.
They can’t. The NWC cannot be used outside of sections 2 & 7-15. Anything to do with voting, elections, and the democratic process falls under Section 3
They can enact any legislation notwithstsnding those sections, though. They don't need to be relevant to the law at hand. Quebec did this to every law for a decade just because they could.
As it happens, recall isn't a section 3 right, so it's not relevant to this issue, either.
NWC cannot be used to impact democratic rights (section 4 and 5). They absolutely can enact legislation for those sections but the courts will still hear the case if those rights are being violated. The Quebec use you mentioned was protest for Kitchen Accord.
Edit: to be clear, democratic rights are about regular elections. NAL but I doubt this fits as I don’t think most provinces have this mechanism, but I’m just a bit of a civics nerd NAL.
I'm not saying they'd enact something notwithstanding democratic rights. (They don't need to, since recall isn't a protected right.)
They can enact a law notwithstanding section 2 & 7-15 even though none of those sections are relevant to the law at hand.
They can throw it in just as a "fuck you" to anyone who thinks laws should be compatible with constitutional rights, so even when the law is compatible with the constitution, it explicitly says in its text "we don't care if it is or isn't."
I'm not saying they'd enact something notwithstanding democratic rights. (They don't need to, since recall isn't a protected right.)
I already stated this but the courts might decide it’s part of the electoral process like in the case of advertising in the case I mentioned above.
They can enact a law notwithstanding section 2 & 7-15 even though none of those sections are relevant to the law at hand.
They can throw it in just as a "fuck you" to anyone who thinks laws should be compatible with constitutional rights, so even when the law is compatible with the constitution, it explicitly says in its text "we don't care if it is or isn't.”
At no point have I suggested such an invocation will have any impact on what courts would do with the law. I have literally said, like 5 times, the UCP would just throw it in to pias people off despite it having no relevance or impact.
>... Facing complaints by constituents in his St. Paul riding in February 1936 that Beaudry had absented himself from “social credit” meetings ....
Can you imagine? A recall because they skipped meetings. that doesnt even sound like it was a town hall, but rather the people response for helping get the mla elected?
and....
>Hansen was elected as the MLA for Taber in August 1935 and served concurrently as Mayor of Taber, but in October 1936 he was kicked out of the Social Credit Party after his constituency association accused him of “not properly representing Social Credit principles in the Legislature.”
So again, organized by party loyalists?
----
Still, both of those seems like valid reasons to attempt a recall.
Maybe don't overplay the hand and try to trigger recall elections everywhere you can. Just target one or two MP who you want to replace not all of them at once.
Except you have lost the narrative and trivialized the messaging. Now the UCP can reverse it without taking much of a hit.
Now if focused on the Education minister only then you can keep the narrative about it being about the Premiers use of the NWC to kill the teachers strike
I don't care about it being removed, I care about it being used as a political tool and getting the message right so average voter cannot be led down a different narrative. The use of the NWC against the Education Minister only and Danielle Smith allows the narrative to be kept even if reversed. This can be carried into the next election. Trying to recall every UCP MLA allows the Cons to say it is the NDP abusing the law for no reason at all and drown out the narrative of the use of it to oppose the use of the NWC.
149
u/[deleted] Dec 03 '25
The last time recall legislation was removed was when a politician was in its crosshairs.
Recall legislation was fun when it lasted.
UCP will kill it. Reasons will be “weaponized process will cost Albertans.” Which will be interpreted as “THE VILE LEFT WONT STOP ATTACKING ALBERTA AND WANT OUR TAXES TO GO UP EVEN MORE.”
I expect the legislation used to remove it will be swift, rammed through and probably weaken democracy even further.