2023 UCP Alberta election

[Kirkhill]

Question: Is a province subordinate to the federal government in the same way a municipality is to a province?

If a province's laws can be over-ridden by the Governor in Council and the province's Lieutenant Governor is a creation of the Governor-General then it would appear to me that at least some people believe that the provinces are subsidiaries of the federal government.

I am not sure that that belief is universal.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Question: Is a province subordinate to the federal government in the same way a municipality is to a province?

You have to go back to the BNA for the answer to that.

My thoughts are, no, not precisely. Provinces and the Feds have different constitutional responsibilities. Provinces are not creatures of the federal government in the same way Municipalities are creatures of Provinces.

 

[QV]

You have to go back to the BNA for the answer to that.

My thoughts are, no, not precisely. Provinces and the Feds have different constitutional responsibilities. Provinces are not creatures of the federal government in the same way Municipalities are creatures of Provinces.

Right, this is my understanding and I'm happy to be corrected. So because of that different relationship, when Feds mess in provincial affairs its a problem. When provinces intervene in municipal affairs, it's part of their job.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Right, this is my understanding and I'm happy to be corrected. So because of that different relationship, when Feds mess in provincial affairs its a problem. When provinces intervene in municipal affairs, it's part of their job.

Pretty much yes, but if provinces mess too much in Municipal affairs, they risk owning the problem.

 

[Rudburg]

Right, this is my understanding and I'm happy to be corrected. So because of that different relationship, when Feds mess in provincial affairs its a problem. When provinces intervene in municipal affairs, it's part of their job.

Provinces have complete control over municipalities. They can amalgamate cities (think Toronto), shift town/city/county limits, force changes to the composition of municipal governments (again, Toronto) and they can do it without their consent.

Whether provinces should exercise their power to do that is another matter.

 

[RangerRay]

It’s one thing for the province to step in when there is dysfunctional council. It’s another when the local council is doing something the province doesn’t like ideologically.

 

[lenaitch]

I figure when a government says that a bill they are proposing would be rarely used, people should be cautious.

I wonder what province-wide epidemic of municipal councils running amok prompted this? Or was it a quiet day in Cabinet with all the real problems solved. Maybe the actual Bill will be clearer, but the media coverage suggests that there will very few parameters surrounding the firing of elected officials and overturning of bylaws.

 

[brihard]

Municipalities are a creation of the province.
Every authority or power exercised by a municipality is devolved to them by some statute or regulation, nearly always provincial.

If the UCP government is concerned with municipal actions, they should legislate appropriate law to constrain the municipal actions that they feel are unacceptable to the provincial government. Make sure there’s a clear and consistent set of rules for what a municipality can and cannot do. This still respects the will of municipal voters in who they choose.

What they’re doing instead is granting themselves the power to arbitrarily and unilaterally remove municipal governments, the democratic will of the voters be damned. And there would be no check to ensure that such action would be objective and consistent rather than just capricious and based on differences of ideology.

 

[QV]

Provinces have complete control over municipalities. They can amalgamate cities (think Toronto), shift town/city/county limits, force changes to the composition of municipal governments (again, Toronto) and they can do it without their consent.

Whether provinces should exercise their power to do that is another matter.

Interesting. So the case at hand is in fact legal and in accordance with the constitution and it is really a matter of opinion if its a good move or not. I can live with that.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Interesting. So the case at hand is in fact legal and in accordance with the constitution and it is really a matter of opinion if its a good move or not. I can live with that.

Here is a test for you, QV:

Are you comfortable with a future Alberta NDP government having the power to summarily dismiss any Municipal Council, for any reason at all?

 

[QV]

Here is a test for you, QV:

Are you comfortable with a future Alberta NDP government having the power to summarily dismiss any Municipal Council, for any reason at all?

That is loaded. Any reason at all is in fact no reason. To answer this question you have, I need more information.

-Is the UCP trying to obtain power to dismiss a muni council on a whim for no reason?
-Cannot they not already dismiss a council for reasonable cause?
-Is this new law fundamentally changing things or just streamlining existing?

I don't know the answers to the above, and I certainly don't trust the CBC to accurately inform the same. But so far to date, I trust the UCP to the right thing though that trust remains conditional.

 

[IKnowNothing]

That is loaded. Any reason at all is in fact no reason. To answer this question you have, I need more information.

So you didn't at least read the PR release/ summary for yourself before declaring it another check for the win column?

-Is the UCP trying to obtain power to dismiss a muni council on a whim for no reason?

Essentially- "Allow Cabinet to remove a councillor if in the public interest, or to order a referendum to determine whether the councillor should be removed"

-Cannot they not already dismiss a council for reasonable cause?

Yes. " Minister can only remove a sitting councillor through the municipal inspection process and only under very specific circumstances."

Further on bylaw:
Proposed:
A. "Enable Cabinet to require a municipality to amend or repeal a bylaw."
B. "Give Cabinet authority to direct a municipality to take specific actionto protect public health and/or safety."

Current:
A. Cabinet may only intervene with respect to a land use bylaw or statutory plan.

B. No provisions exist.

 

[QV]

So you didn't at least read the PR release/ summary for yourself before declaring it another check for the win column?

Essentially- "Allow Cabinet to remove a councillor if in the public interest, or to order a referendum to determine whether the councillor should be removed"

Yes. "Allow Cabinet to remove a councillor if in the public interest, or toorder a referendum to determine whether the councillor should be removed"

Further on bylaw:
Proposed:
A. "Enable Cabinet to require a municipality to amend or repeal a bylaw."
B. "Give Cabinet authority to direct a municipality to take specific actionto protect public health and/or safety."

Current:
A. Cabinet may only intervene with respect to a land use bylaw or statutory plan.

B. No provisions exist.

Oh! Thank you for that IKN. In this case, yes, a win and I support.

No to SKT's question specifically the "for no reason" part. These amendments seem like good reasons, therefore I support.

 

[Remius]

So you didn't at least read the PR release/ summary for yourself before declaring it another check for the win column?

Essentially- "Allow Cabinet to remove a councillor if in the public interest, or to order a referendum to determine whether the councillor should be removed"

Yes. "Allow Cabinet to remove a councillor if in the public interest, or toorder a referendum to determine whether the councillor should be removed"

Further on bylaw:
Proposed:
A. "Enable Cabinet to require a municipality to amend or repeal a bylaw."
B. "Give Cabinet authority to direct a municipality to take specific actionto protect public health and/or safety."

Current:
A. Cabinet may only intervene with respect to a land use bylaw or statutory plan.

B. No provisions exist.

On that though. We had a situation in Ottawa with a councillor that should have seen him removed but no mechanism existed to do so. At all. It certainly was not in the public interest to have him on council. A referendum on his removal would have led to that by all accounts.

It all led to an erosion of trust in municipal gvt that couldn’t deal with an untenable situation. As far as I know Ontario is looking into something similar.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Oh! Thank you for that IKN. In this case, yes, a win and I support.

No to SKT's question specifically the "for no reason" part. These amendments seem like good reasons, therefore I support.

Specifically- Who determines what is in the public interest? What is the threshold for enacting that? Without those questions answered and parameters defined SKT's colloquial "for no reason" stands. And so does his question. Is this still a win if it allows a hypothetical NDP government to dictate policy to your municipality?

If yes would you then agree that concentration of power in higher levels of government and an expansion of their influence is a good thing, even if it leads to decisions being made against the democratic will of the constituents of smaller level governments, on items that have long been their jurisdiction?

 

[IKnowNothing]

On that though. We had a situation in Ottawa with a councillor that should have seen him removed but no mechanism existed to do so. At all. It certainly was not in the public interest to have him on council. A referendum on his removal would have led to that by all accounts.

It all led to an erosion of trust in municipal gvt that couldn’t deal with an untenable situation. As far as I know Ontario is looking into something similar.

"A" mechanism- a well defined mechanism with clear and reasonable executable parameters/process to avoid situations is good policy. Carte blanche to bulldoze without accountability is not.

As a rural Ontarian the prospect of such provincial legislation being copycatted is very worrying, and so called conservatives cheering it on because of nothing but shortsighted blind partisanship are baffling to me. The GTA vote already holds enough influence in my life.

 

[lenaitch]

If the province wants the power to fire at will and override decisions, why not just dispense with the charade of democracy and make all municipal officials provincial employees or appointees?

I haven't searched the Alberta government database for the actual Bill, but it might not be too instructive. The 'meat on the bones' might well end up in the regulations. If there are clear and articulable parameters, fair enough; the province holds the cards, but everybody, elected officials included, need to know what their scope is.

I can see Ford doing something similar in Ontario, particularly in regard to housing starts. He seems quite vocal about demanding municipalities meet the targets he has set. I, on the other hand, would mind firing him or Sylvia Jones (health minister) for failing to adequately fund rural health care. I guess I don't hold any cards.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This is a "camel's nose" idea that no conservative government should allow to see the light of day. Progressives love top-down governance and this kind of tool would be exploited by them to a fare-thee-well. No nominally conservative government should be making future progressive governments a gift of this kind of legislation. If the latter want it, they should be taking the heat from voters.

 

[Blackadder1916]

For those interested in the background to the dismissal of the Chestermere council members

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/6c2a14ab-70cd-49b7-8010-3d4e8f2f097e/resource/da940610-5203-4108-b171-2eddc01b5a85/download/ma-chestermere-dismissal-reasons-for-decision-2023-12.pdf

 

[Rudburg]

If the province wants the power to fire at will and override decisions, why not just dispense with the charade of democracy and make all municipal officials provincial employees or appointees?

I haven't searched the Alberta government database for the actual Bill, but it might not be too instructive. The 'meat on the bones' might well end up in the regulations. If there are clear and articulable parameters, fair enough; the province holds the cards, but everybody, elected officials included, need to know what their scope is.

I can see Ford doing something similar in Ontario, particularly in regard to housing starts. He seems quite vocal about demanding municipalities meet the targets he has set. I, on the other hand, would mind firing him or Sylvia Jones (health minister) for failing to adequately fund rural health care. I guess I don't hold any cards.

In general, provincial governments should stay out of purely municipal matters, if only to avoid the problems that come with micromanagement of issues that you can't fully understand. A province as a whole has no interest in which street a new fire station gets built on.

I can see two general exceptions to that principle. First, since municipalities are the responsibility of the province, they should act if there is evidence of corruption, criminality or gross incompetence in a municipal government or one of its arms.

The second exception is when the municipality is doing something that is technically within its jurisdiction but has a significant impact beyond its boundaries.

The problem is that both of those exceptions require some judgement calls, and the deciding factor might be politics rather than the overall public interest.