Alberta
Province of Alberta will hold referendum on equalization next year
From the Province of Alberta
Getting a fair deal for Alberta
Premier Jason Kenney has released the next step of Alberta’s strategy to secure a fair deal in the federation, addressing the unprecedented levels of frustration expressed with the barriers placed in the way of Alberta’s economy.
The Fair Deal Panel report recommends 25 ways to ensure Alberta has a stronger voice in Confederation, including fairer funding allocations from Ottawa, better representation for Alberta in the House of Commons, and exploration of an Alberta Pension Plan and Alberta Police Force.
More than 40,000 Albertans participated in the Fair Deal Panel engagement, providing input on ideas that could give the province a stronger role within Canada, increase control in areas of provincial jurisdiction and advance our province’s vital economic interests. The panel’s report to government contains 25 separate recommendations that address the frustrations many Albertans shared with the panel.
“Albertans have told us what a fair deal looks like for our province – it consists of more autonomy, better representation and a renewed respect for all provinces and territories. Our government agrees, and work on many of these areas is already underway. We are eager to take further action on the panel’s recommendations to ensure Albertans have a strong voice and a fair deal when we need it most.”
Government has already taken action or started work on a number of initiatives related to the panel’s recommendations, such as moving forward on reforming the Fiscal Stabilization Program, establishing a provincial chief firearms officer, and working with other provinces and territories to further explore the development of economic resource corridors to move our products to market. Government is committed to further analyzing all the recommendations to ensure they get the attention they deserve.
“Working with Albertans and hearing their stories, frustrations and ideas about how to empower our province on the national stage has been an incredible honour. Albertans told us they want government to take action to strengthen the province and assert our jurisdiction, so I think they’ll be pleased with just how much work is happening in the areas they stressed as top priorities.”
“Albertans know we’ve been getting a raw deal and that there is no fair deal without tackling equalization, so it’s great to see the Fair Deal Panel acknowledge the importance of the equalization referendum. There’s still a lot more work to do, but this report and the equalization referendum are the crucial first few steps in Alberta’s fight for fairness.”
“As a group of businesses who believe in our province and our country, we are very supportive of the report and Alberta getting a fair deal. Everyone will win when we can strengthen inter-provincial trade and build our country by making Confederation fairer. We believe that the Fair Deal report is a step in that direction.”
Actions to date
Since being elected, the government has kept its word to secure a fair deal for Alberta with concrete actions to implement platform commitments, including:
Carbon Tax Repeal
Commitment:
- “Introduce the Carbon Tax Repeal Act, and challenge the constitutionality of the federal carbon tax by filing a judicial reference to the Court of Appeal, while continuing to support similar challenges by the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario.”
Action:
- Passed the Carbon Tax Repeal Act, effective May 30, 2019, and secured a declaration from the Alberta Appeal Court that the federal carbon tax is unconstitutional. Also supporting appeals by Saskatchewan and Ontario on the federal carbon tax to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Pipelines
Commitment:
- “Immediately file a constitutional challenge to strike the federal government’s ‘No More Pipelines’ Bill C-69 as a violation of Section 92 of the Constitution Act, which gives Alberta clear, exclusive jurisdiction over the production of oil and gas.”
Action:
- Filed a constitutional challenge of Bill C-69 at the Alberta Court of Appeal. Decision is pending.
Market Access
Commitment:
- “To proclaim into law Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, to make it clear that Alberta will defend the value of its resources against provincial governments that seek to block pipelines.”
Action:
- Proclaimed the Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act on April 30, 2019.
Indigenous participation in resource development
Commitment:
- “Create a $10 million litigation fund to support pro-development First Nations in defending their right to be consulted on major energy projects.”
Action:
- Alberta created the Indigenous Litigation Fund which is now supporting the Woodland Cree First Nation’s constitutional challenge of the federal “tanker ban” Bill C-48.
- The government further supports Indigenous participation through the creation of the Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, backed by up to $1 billion to support Indigenous financial participation in major resource projects.
CMHC stress test:
Commitment:
- “Challenge the federal government’s unfair one-size-fits-all approach to mortgages by demanding Canada Mortgage and Home Corporation (CMHC) stress tests are removed from Alberta residents.”
Action:
- Alberta has worked to continually advocate for changes to the CMHC stress test, which through its unilateral application does not reflect the needs of Alberta homebuyers. While the federal government announced changes to the program, they still do not take into account the different circumstances of the Alberta housing market and continue to disadvantage Alberta homebuyers and make it even more difficult for Albertans to qualify for CMHC mortgage insurance.
Employment Insurance reforms:
Commitment:
- “Demand reforms to Canada’s Employment Insurance (EI) program so that Albertans who lose their jobs are not penalized and treated unfairly compared to other Canadians.”
Action:
- Alberta has continued to raise this issue with the federal government, most recently during the December 2019 Ministers’ Mission to Ottawa. At that time, Alberta noted that Alberta employers and workers consistently pay more into the EI program than they receive. Alberta would like EI program reform to ensure equitable treatment of Albertans who lose their jobs and employers who pay EI premiums.
Development of an Alberta Parole Board
Commitment:
- “End Alberta’s agreement with the Parole Board of Canada and pass legislation to create an Alberta Parole Board.”
Action:
- In June 2020, Alberta announced our intention to create our own parole board to provide a fairer, faster and more responsive justice system that helps end the “revolving door” that enables repeat offenders to target Albertans, particularly in rural areas.
Resource corridors:
Commitment:
- “Seek to form federal and provincial agreement on resource corridors, which are pre-approved land corridors to expedite major resource project approvals; a key part of these corridors would be facilitating aboriginal co-ownership of financial participation, where relevant.”
Action:
- After Premier Kenney raised this topic at the Summer 2019 Council of the Federation (COF) meeting, all jurisdictions agreed to do further work on this concept. Alberta officials are working with other provinces and territories to prepare a report that explores ways to enhance the existing connections between provinces and territories to provide a more co-ordinated and strategic approach for transportation and transmission of resources across Canada. This report will be presented to premiers in advance of the 2020 COF meeting, and will provide options for future collaborative work.
Canadian free trade
Commitment:
- “Support the vital rights of Canadians to sell their goods and services and exercise their trades and professions in every part of Canada.”
Action:
- Alberta has unilaterally scrapped 21 of 27 exemptions under the Canada Free Trade Agreement, becoming the province with the lowest internal trade barriers.
- Led an effort to expand Central and Eastern Canadian provinces in the New West Partnership Agreement.
- Continuing policy work on the potential unilateral recognition of Canadian trade and professional certification.
National support for pipelines:
Commitment:
- “Build an interprovincial coalition of provinces that supports jobs pipelines, and our energy industry, making it a top issue in federal-provincial relations.”
Action:
- Secured support from 12 of 13 provinces and territories for “national resource and energy corridors, including oil and gas pipelines.”
Fair Deal Panel recommendations and actions underway
Recommendation 1: Press strenuously for the removal of the current constraints on the Fiscal Stabilization Program, which prevent Albertans from receiving a $2.4 billion equalization rebate.
Action
- The Government of Alberta advocated for retroactive changes to the Fiscal Stabilization Program at the December 2019 Council of the Federation meeting, where all provinces and territories agreed to support changes to the program, including a retroactive rebate to address the unfair per capital cap on payments that affects jurisdictions such as Alberta. The province has raised this demand with the Government of Canada as a central issue over the past year.
- A Fair Deal for Alberta, a chapter in Budget 2020 dedicated to federal-provincial fiscal issues, outlined Alberta’s case for reforming the Fiscal Stabilization Program.
Recommendation 2: Proceed with the proposed referendum on equalization, asking a clear question along the lines of: “Do you support the removal of Section 36, which deals with the principle of equalization, from the Constitution Act, 1982?”
Action:
- Agreed to in principle.
- Further work will be done to analyze what an appropriate referendum question on equalization would be.
- This referendum could be held in conjunction with the 2021 municipal elections.
Recommendation 3: Collaborate with other jurisdictions to reduce trade barriers within Canada and pressure the federal government to enforce free trade in Canada.
Action:
- Alberta has taken a leadership role in reducing trade barriers within Canada:
- In 2019, Alberta lifted 21 trade exceptions under the Canada Free Trade Agreement and narrowed two others to become the jurisdiction with the fewest number of exceptions in Canada.
- Alberta continues to call on the federal government and other jurisdictions to follow Alberta’s lead and eliminate trade barriers, is leading efforts to expand the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA) to include other provinces, and continues work on the possible unilateral recognition of trade and professional qualifications.
Recommendation 4: Collaborate with other jurisdictions and stakeholders to secure cross-border rights-of-way and create unobstructed resource corridors within Canada to tidewater and world markets.
Action:
- Alberta secured unanimous support from western and northern premiers for “energy and resource corridors, including oil and gas pipelines,” and unanimous agreement amongst all 13 premiers at the Council of the Federation to support “economic corridors (to) expand markets for Canadian energy, including hydroelectricity and natural gas.”
- All jurisdictions have agreed to do further work on this concept, and Alberta officials continue to work with other provinces and territories to provide a more co-ordinated and strategic approach for transporting and transmitting resources across Canada.
- A report on this work will be presented to premiers in advance of the 2020 Council of the Federation meeting.
- Alberta is participating in the work of the Pan-Canadian Competitive Trade Corridor Initiative.
- Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highways across Canada are working to find ways to enhance internal and international trade.
- Government provided a grant to the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy to support its Canadian Northern Corridor Program.
- Alberta will create a task force to work with industry, First Nations, municipalities and other provinces to move resource corridors from concept to reality.
Recommendation 5: Collaborate with other jurisdictions to design and advance regional strategies for northern development; pressure the federal government to implement those strategies.
Action:
- The Northern Alberta Development Council (NADC) is a public agency accountable to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Its ongoing work includes investigating, monitoring, evaluating, planning and promoting practical measures to foster and advance development in northern Alberta.
- The NADC will continue to focus on the development of one or more multi-modal corridors across the north, which would include broadband, utilities, roadways and rail.
- Work has started to develop a Northern Strategy for Alberta to further develop the corridor concepts and complement the work of other provincial and territorial members of the Northern Ministers’ Development Forum.
Recommendations 6 A & B: Support and press for the strictest possible application of the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons. Work with other provinces and the federal government to democratize the Senate appointment process.
Action:
- Government recently reintroduced the Senatorial Selection Act to ensure a democratic appointment process for current and future Senate appointments.
- Senate elections will be held in conjunction with the 2021 municipal elections.
- Work on a request to the federal government advocating for a more representative share of House of Commons seats is currently underway.
Recommendation 7: Secure a fairer share of federal civil service opportunities and federal offices in Western Canada.
Action:
- This recommendation requires further analysis and work before it can be implemented.
- Executive Council will develop a plan to address this recommendation.
Recommendation 8: Abolish or at least change the residency requirement for the federal courts.
Action:
- Agreed to in principle.
- Alberta will immediately begin to advocate for the elimination of the long-standing and archaic rule to have federal court judges reside within the National Capital Region, which has unfairly punished Alberta residents.
Recommendation 9: Assert more control over immigration for the economic benefit of Alberta.
Action:
- Agreed to in principle.
- Alberta will continue to advocate for economic policies that strengthen Alberta, including immigration policies.
- The province will seek a more active role in setting immigration numbers and policies with the federal government as part of the Alberta Advantage Immigration Strategy.
Recommendation 10: Collaborate with other provinces and industry to advance market-based approaches to environment protection, including a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Action:
- Alberta continues to work with other jurisdictions that share the common objective of ensuring climate change response plans are locally developed and reflective of the unique circumstances in each province and territory. This includes balancing energy development with the need to address climate change.
- Government has worked with industry and stakeholders to develop the Technology Innovation and Emission Reduction regulation for large emitters, which supports the overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta while maintaining industry competitiveness.
- Alberta worked with industry and stakeholder partners to establish a provincial methane regulatory approach that is more cost-effective than proposed federal regulations.
Recommendation 11: Continue to challenge federal legislation that affects provincial jurisdiction.
Action:
- Alberta succeeded in obtaining a judicial reference from the Court of Appeal declaring the federal carbon tax unconstitutional, and is awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeal challenging the constitutionality of federal Bill C-69, commonly known as the “No More Pipelines Act.”
- Alberta will continue to defend its economy and constitutional jurisdiction against intrusive federal legislation as necessary.
Recommendation 12: Work with other provinces to secure a federal-provincial agreement prohibiting the federal government from spending, taxing, legislation or treaty making in areas of provincial or joint jurisdiction without the consent of the affected province(s).
Action:
- Agreed to in principle.
- As the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, Premier Kenney will champion an agreement that restricts federal overreach to respect the constitutional authority of Canada’s provinces.
Recommendations 13 A & B: Develop a comprehensive plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan and withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan. Subsequently, provide Albertans the opportunity, via a referendum, to vote for or against withdrawing from the Canada Pension Plan and creating the Alberta Pension Plan.
Action:
- Treasury Board and Finance will develop a detailed analysis of the costs, benefits and structure of a potential Alberta Pension Plan, to be completed and released in 2021. Alberta would only proceed with the creation of a provincial pension plan if supported by a majority of voters in a referendum.
Recommendation 14: Create an Alberta Police Service to replace the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Action:
- The Department of Justice and Solicitor General will commence a detailed study into the costs, benefits and structure of a potential provincial police service. This study will be completed and released in 2021.
Recommendation 15: Appoint an Alberta Chief Firearms Officer (CFO).
Action:
- Alberta will appoint a provincial CFO and is starting the process of negotiating this change with the federal government.
- Alberta established the Alberta Firearms Advisory Committee (AFAC) to provide recommendations on how to structure a provincial CFO.
Recommendation 16: Secure a seat at the table when the federal government negotiates and implements international agreements and treaties affecting Alberta’s interests.
Action:
- Alberta has pushed the federal government for a more formal, consistent and appropriate role for the province at all international negotiations.
- Alberta will continue this advocacy work on both an ad hoc basis (i.e. as agreements and treaties arise) and in a more deliberate fashion with the federal government.
- Alberta will strenuously pursue advocacy work in this area, starting with a formal request to the federal government to ensure a seat for Alberta at the international negotiating table.
Recommendation 17: Strengthen Alberta’s presence in Ottawa.
Action:
- Alberta will open advocacy offices in Ottawa and Quebec to work with elected officials; federal departments, agencies, boards and commissions; and foreign missions to advance Alberta’s interests
Recommendation 18: Opt out of new federal cost-shared programs, subject to Alberta receiving full compensation.
Action:
- Alberta will seek to opt out of any federal programs that are inconsistent with Alberta’s interests, and will seek full compensation from the federal government, as appropriate.
- This will be Alberta’s approach with respect to the proposed federal approach to pharmaceuticals.
Recommendation 19: Resist federal intrusions into health and social programming, and do not seek to exchange cash payments for tax points at this time.
Action:
- The Government of Alberta committed to seeking an exchange of tax points for existing tax payments in its election platform, so this recommendation requires modification to align with an existing government commitment.
- Work will proceed to scope and analyze the most effective approaches and timing for seeking such a fundamental shift in Canada’s fiscal arrangements, along with potential alternative reforms that would advance Alberta’s interests.
Recommendation 20: Continue to diversify Alberta’s economy in the energy sector and beyond.
Action:
- This recommendation is accepted, and is reflected in the Government’s Blueprint for Jobs. Policies that support diversification will be further advanced in Alberta’s post-COVID Economic Recovery Strategy, to be released this summer.
Recommendation 21: Vigorously pursue access to markets for Alberta’s exports.
Action:
- Government has strongly advocated for all major pipeline projects that support getting our resources to market.
- This includes the significant $1.5 billion equity investment and $6 billion loan guarantee to accelerate construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
- The province has a strong international presence with 12 international offices, including Washington, D.C., and Beijing. These offices play a vital role in advancing Alberta’s interests globally through trade promotion, investment attraction and advocacy initiatives.
- Alberta appointed James Rajotte to lead Alberta’s Washington, D.C., trade office as it advances the province’s interests and opens the American market to new Alberta exports.
- Alberta will continue to vigorously pursue the completion of all pipeline projects that support getting our resources to market, including advocating for the completion of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project and Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Project.
Recommendation 22: Make no changes, at this time, to the administration of agreements that Alberta public agencies and municipalities have with the Government of Canada.
Action:
- Working with public bodies to ensure federal funding aligns with desired provincial outcomes and has the greatest impact for Albertans is of vital importance.
- While government does not anticipate any changes to the relationship between public agencies and other governments at this time, it is a subject that may be revisited in the future.
Recommendations 23 A & B: Make no changes to tax collection in Alberta at this time and support Quebec in its bid to collect the federal and provincial portions of personal income taxes and, if Quebec is successful, pursue the same strategy if it is advantageous.
Action:
- Alberta supports Quebec in its effort to pursue the collection of both the provincial and federal portions of personal income taxes.
- Further analysis is required on the feasibility of a provincial tax collection agency, including understanding the benefits of policy flexibility against the cost of additional compliance and administrative requirements.
Recommendation 24: Use democratic tools such as referenda and citizens’ initiatives to seek Albertans’ guidance on selected Fair Deal Panel proposals and other initiatives.
Action:
- The Government of Alberta will introduce citizens’ initiative legislation, and will use referendums to consult Albertans on major issues, as appropriate.
Recommendation 25: Explore ways and means to affirm Alberta’s cultural, economic and political uniqueness in law and government policy.
Action:
Alberta accepts this recommendation. While we currently work to affirm our cultural identity, more can be done. The Minister of Culture, Multiculturalism and Status of Women will be tasked with developing an action plan to implement this recommendation.
Alberta
The Recall Trap: 21 Alberta MLA’s face recall petitions
When Democratic Tools Become Weapons
A Canadian politician once kept his legislative seat while serving time in prison.
Gilles Grégoire, a founding figure in Quebec’s nationalist movement, was convicted in 1983 of multiple counts of sexual assault against minors, mostly girls between the ages of 10 and 14. He inhabited a cell yet remained a member of the National Assembly. A representative of free citizens could no longer walk among them.
Grégoire became the kind of figure who seems made for a recall law. His presence in office after conviction insulted the very notion of a democratic mandate. Yet Quebec lacked recall legislation, and the Assembly chose not to intervene. The episode lingers as a reminder that even robust democracies sometimes fail to protect themselves from rare, glaring contradictions.
Such cases hold powerful sway over the political imagination. They tempt reformers to believe that recall is the cure for democratic injustice, giving it exceptional weight it does not deserve. A constitution shaped by anomalies becomes a constitution shaped by distortion.
We are grateful that you’re enjoying Haultain Research.
For the full experience, and to help us bring you more quality research and commentary, please upgrade your subscription.
Alberta’s own history proves the point, though the lesson has been forgotten. William Aberhart’s rise in 1935 owed more to spiritual magnetism and Depression-era desperation than to prudent reform. He promised Social Credit prosperity through monthly dividends to all citizens. The electorate believed that a new economic order would arrive at a cheerful pace. It did not. Within eighteen months of taking office, Aberhart found himself the target of what he himself had created. His government had passed recall legislation in its first session, fulfilling a campaign promise to democratize Alberta’s government. When the promised dividends failed to materialize, his own constituents in Okotoks-High River began gathering signatures for his removal. The charge was not misconduct but failure to deliver miracles.
Faced with this threat, Aberhart’s government retroactively repealed the recall legislation rather than allow him to be forced from his seat. He thus became the first Canadian politician to institute recall and to be threatened with it. History recorded the episode as a cautionary tale rather than a triumph of democratic vigilance. It showed how easily recall could slip from a tool for integrity to a weapon for frustration, revealing a truth that democratic societies often forget: mechanisms designed for exceptional cases seldom remain limited to them.
Those two stories frame Alberta’s problem today. The province revived recall legislation under Premier Jason Kenney in 2021, with the law taking effect later that year. The measure returned with assurances that high thresholds would prevent misuse. Its defenders claimed recall would restrain arrogance and encourage accountability, offering ordinary Albertans a way to hold politicians accountable between elections. Then, facing discontent within his own party over COVID mandates, Kenney himself became the subject of a different form of recall, a leadership review that undermined his power. Premier Danielle Smith, who succeeded him, amended the recall legislation in July 2025 to make it easier to use. She lowered the signature threshold and extended the collection period, changes that would soon work against her own government.
The result has been quite different from what either leader intended. On October 23, 2025, Alberta approved its first recall petition of the modern era, targeting Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides in Calgary-Bow. The applicant, Jennifer Yeremiy of a group called AB Resistance, told reporters that their goal was “to put forward enough recalls to trigger an early election.” This was not a response to corruption or criminality. It was an explicit strategy to overturn the results of the 2023 provincial election.
The floodgates opened from there. As of December 10, 2025, twenty-one MLAs face active recall petitions. The list now includes Premier Smith herself, as well as multiple cabinet ministers, backbenchers, and even one NDP opposition member. None confronts allegations of criminality. None confronts evidence of corruption. None resembles Gilles Grégoire. Their adversaries object to education funding decisions, the government’s use of the notwithstanding clause during a teachers’ strike, and various claims of insufficient constituent engagement. These are matters of policy disagreement, not grounds for judicial removal from office.
The principled case for recall legislation deserves some consideration. A democratic society must guard against officeholders whose conduct becomes so egregious that the public cannot wait for the next scheduled election. A mechanism for such removal, carefully designed and narrowly applied, reflects respect for citizenship and the dignity of democratic representation. The theory imagines a vigilant electorate using a sharp tool with care, meeting the rare case with a rare response.
Reality seldom matches this ideal. British Columbia has maintained recall legislation since 1995—thirty years during which not a single MLA has been successfully recalled, despite no shortage of controversial politicians and unpopular decisions. When recall petitions have been attempted there, they have almost exclusively targeted MLAs from close ridings over policy disputes rather than serious misconduct. The pattern is remarkably consistent. Recall becomes a tool for the sore losers of close elections, not a mechanism for removing the genuinely unfit.
This should not surprise us. Most political conflicts involve competing policy visions rather than breaches of trust. Legislators are elected precisely to judge the merits of those visions over a defined term. Elections confer authority because they settle disputes for a time, allowing governments to govern and oppositions to organize for the next contest. A recall mechanism that permits policy quarrels to trigger removal undermines the very purpose of elections. It invites factions to overturn results they dislike through extraordinary means, weakening the equilibrium that representative government tries to protect.
The Aberhart episode illustrates this tendency with clarity. His opponents did not claim he had abused office or engaged in corruption. They claimed he had failed to conjure prosperity, which was entirely true; his promise of monthly dividends proved impossible to deliver. Their frustration stemmed from disappointment rather than betrayal, from unmet expectations rather than broken trust. Yet they seized on the recall mechanism to express that disappointment, nearly removing him on that basis alone. The effort had nothing to do with the integrity of public office and everything to do with the volatility of public expectation during desperate times.
The contemporary Alberta law requires signatures from sixty percent of voters who participated in the last election, collected within 90 days. This appears to be a significant threshold designed to prevent frivolous attempts. The appearance misleads in several ways. First, the threshold is lower than it sounds because it requires sixty percent of actual voters rather than eligible voters—a crucial distinction that substantially reduces the number needed. Second, even petitions that fall short of this threshold can inflict severe political damage. The mere existence of an active recall petition marks an MLA with the taint of public disapproval, regardless of whether the petition succeeds.
The scale and coordination of current efforts reveal something more troubling than isolated expressions of constituent dissatisfaction. A website called Operation Total Recall provides organizational infrastructure for a systematic campaign targeting all 44 MLAs who voted to use the notwithstanding clause during the teachers’ strike. This is not spontaneous grassroots democracy. It is coordinated political warfare using recall as a weapon to overturn electoral outcomes. The effort aims not at removing individual members for cause, but at destabilizing an elected government through mass petitions. Analysis of the 2023 election results shows that five UCP MLAs won by fewer than 1,000 votes, with roughly a dozen more winning by fewer than 2,000. Multiple successful recalls could topple a government with only an 11-seat majority, precisely the outcome the organizers openly seek.
Each successful petition would trigger not just a referendum but also, if that referendum passes, a by-election costing taxpayers between $500,000 and $1 million. This is public money spent not to address disqualifying conduct but to re-litigate policy disagreements that voters already decided in 2023. The financial cost alone should give pause. But the deeper costs run to the foundations of representative government itself.
Prudence counsels caution here. Stable institutions exist precisely to restrain public passions rather than reflect them in every heated moment. Legislators must make decisions that sometimes contradict immediate popular sentiment, particularly when facing complex policy files or managing competing interests across diverse constituencies. A system that keeps them in constant survival mode, forever fighting off recall petitions over unpopular but necessary decisions, cannot foster the kind of judgment that good governance requires. Hayek warned that societies often overestimate their ability to redesign the political order according to the impulses of the moment, mistaking the intensity of feeling for the wisdom of action. Recall legislation embodies exactly this temptation, pretending to offer precise accountability while producing disorder and instability.
The concerns of those organizing these recall campaigns may well be sincere. Many genuinely believe that government policies on education funding or the use of constitutional override powers represent serious failures deserving extraordinary remedy. But sincerity of belief does not make the remedy appropriate. These matters played out during the 2023 election campaign. Voters heard the arguments on both sides. They weighed the competing visions. They made their choices. Those choices produced a government with a mandate to govern according to its platform, which included the education policies and approach to constitutional questions now under attack through recall petitions.
A representative who steals public funds or breaks criminal law betrays the trust voters placed in him. Recall aimed at such behaviour may have genuine merit, providing a necessary safeguard against serious malfeasance. But a representative who supports an unpopular policy does not betray his office—he exercises the judgment he was elected to exercise. That is the political job. Voters who disagree may vote him out at the end of his term. They ought not demand his eviction for legislative disagreement over education funding levels or the appropriate use of constitutional tools in labour disputes.
The shift that recall produces goes beyond individual cases. It fundamentally alters the character of political engagement, moving energy away from long-term relationship building and toward short-term confrontation. Petition campaigns demand signatures rather than solutions. They mobilize resentment rather than reflection. They organize anger rather than deliberation. The timing of the first modern recall petition makes this dynamic clear—it launched during a province-wide teachers’ strike, piggybacking on existing mobilization and emotion. But teachers’ strikes happen. Contract negotiations sometimes get contentious. Should every education minister facing difficult bargaining face recall? Should every healthcare minister dealing with doctors’ disputes become a petition target? This path leads to governance by perpetual crisis, where every unpopular but necessary decision triggers a removal campaign.
The effect on the dignity and effectiveness of public work deserves particular attention. Legislators must confront complex files that rarely offer clearly correct answers. They must choose among imperfect options while balancing competing demands from local constituents and provincial interests. Recall turns these unavoidable difficulties into personal liabilities. Taking a principled but unpopular stand risks triggering a petition. The pressure to remain popular at all times can overwhelm the responsibility to remain principled, inverting the proper relationship between representative and constituency.
If Albertans are genuinely dissatisfied with their government’s direction, a perfectly functional mechanism exists to express that dissatisfaction: the next general election, scheduled for October 2027. That is less than two years away—hardly an eternity in democratic terms. In the meantime, voters retain numerous other tools for making their voices heard. They may contact their MLAs directly, organize politically through parties and interest groups, attend town halls and constituency meetings, and build support for the opposition. These traditional channels require patience and persuasion. They require building actual majority support rather than mobilizing intense minorities. Recall petitions short-circuit this democratic process, allowing well-organized groups to force expensive special votes over disputes that were already litigated during the last election. The NDP opposition, which came close but ultimately fell short in 2023, appears in a hurry to open a back door to reverse its electoral fortune through extraordinary means.
The case of Gilles Grégoire illuminates a genuine weakness in democratic systems—the inability to remove someone whose continued presence in office becomes morally intolerable. This reveals a fundamental flaw. But the solution lies in targeted remedies: clear rules for automatic expulsion upon conviction for serious offences, for instance, rather than a broad recall system that allows every policy grievance to become a removal campaign. Such targeted measures would correct specific defects without inviting the broader turmoil that comprehensive recall legislation produces.
Alberta’s present situation echoes the Aberhart lesson with remarkable fidelity. Recall laws seldom remain tied to their original purpose. They drift toward unintended uses, shifting from instruments of moral accountability to weapons of political agitation. They reward passion rather than judgment at precisely the time when there is already far too much passion and not nearly enough good political judgment. They trade stability for drama and substitute the illusion of democratic empowerment for the reality of weakened institutions that guard freedom.
When Jason Kenney introduced recall legislation in 2021, Alberta had twenty-six years of British Columbia evidence showing how these laws function in practice. That evidence pointed clearly in one direction. Yet the UCP proceeded anyway, and in July 2025, the Smith government made recalls even easier, lowering thresholds and extending signature periods precisely when the government enjoyed a comfortable majority. Now, multiple petitions target UCP cabinet ministers and backbenchers while organizers openly seek to force an early election. The NDP leader’s response captured the irony perfectly: “Hoisted on your own petard.”
A healthy political community requires transparent elections that produce precise results, firm mandates that allow governments to govern, and representatives who can exercise judgment with appropriate stability between electoral contests. It requires citizens who understand that disagreement over policy, much less tit for tat, does not warrant removal. It requires carefully designed safeguards against genuine abuse of office rather than mechanisms that allow temporary frustration to masquerade as a permanent principle. Recall legislation promises a swift cure for democratic ailments while delivering turbulence and rewarding radical impatience.
Democracy depends on accepting election results even when we disagree with them. It depends on waiting for our turn to make our case to voters at the next scheduled opportunity. The recall weapon undermines these basic norms in the service of immediate partisan advantage, encouraging precisely the kind of political mischief that corrodes public trust. This is not democratic vitality expressing itself through new channels. It is democratic exhaustion, the permanent campaign that prevents anyone from governing.
Alberta stands at a point where history speaks with unusual clarity. The Grégoire case shows us the moral outlier who truly deserved immediate removal from office. The Aberhart episode shows us the grave danger of using recall for anything less serious. The voters of this province should draw the correct lesson from both stories. They should protect democracy by resisting the recall illusion—not by eliminating all accountability mechanisms, but by insisting that extraordinary remedies be reserved for truly remarkable circumstances rather than routine policy disputes. That distinction makes all the difference between a legitimate tool and a partisan weapon.
We are grateful that you’re enjoying Haultain Research.
For the full experience, and to help us bring you more quality research and commentary, please upgrade your subscription.
Alberta
Here’s why city hall should save ‘blanket rezoning’ in Calgary
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson
According to Calgarians for Thoughtful Growth (CFTG)—an organization advocating against “blanket rezoning”— housing would be more affordable if the mayor and council restricted what homes can be built in Calgary and where. But that gets the economics backwards.
Blanket rezoning—a 2024 policy that allowed homebuilders to construct duplexes, townhomes and fourplexes in most neighbourhoods—allowed more homebuilding, giving Calgarians more choice, and put downward pressure on prices. Mayor Farkas and several councillors campaigned on repealing blanket rezoning and on December 15 council will debate a motion that could start that process. As Calgarians debate the city’s housing rules, residents should understand the trade-offs involved.
When CFTG claims that blanket rezoning does “nothing” for affordability, it ignores a large body of economic research showing the opposite.
New homes are only built when they can be sold to willing homebuyers for a profit. Restrictions that limit the range of styles and locations for new homes, or that lock denser housing behind a long, costly and uncertain municipal approval process, inevitably eliminate many of these opportunities. That means fewer new homes are built, which worsens housing scarcity and pushes up prices. This intuitive story is backed up by study after study. An analysis by Canada’s federal housing agency put it simply: “higher residential land use regulation seems to be associated with lower housing affordability.”
CFTG also claims that blanket rezoning merely encourages “speculation” (i.e. buying to sell in the short-term for profit) by investors. Any profitable housing market may invite some speculative activity. But homebuilders and investors can only survive financially if they make homes that families are willing to buy or rent. The many Calgary families who bought or rented a new home enabled by blanket rezoning did so because they felt it was their best available option given its price, amenities and location—not because they were pawns in some speculative game. Calgarians benefit when they are free to choose the type of home and neighbourhood that best suits their family, rather than being constrained by the political whims of city hall.
And CFTG’s claim that blanket rezoning harms municipal finances also warrants scrutiny. More specifically, CFTG suggests that developers do not pay for infrastructure upgrades in established neighbourhoods, but this is simply incorrect. The City of Calgary charges an “Established Area Levy” to cover the cost of water and wastewater upgrades spurred by redevelopment projects—raising $16.5 million in 2024 alone. Builders in the downtown area must pay the “Centre City Levy,” which funds several local services (and generated $2.5 million in 2024).
It’s true that municipal fees on homes in new communities are generally higher, but that reflects the reality that new communities require far more new pipes, roads and facilities than established neighbourhoods.
Redeveloping established areas of the city means more residents can make use of streets, transit and other city services already in place, which is often the most cost-effective way for a city to grow. The City of Calgary’s own analysis finds that redevelopment in established neighbourhoods saves billions of taxpayer dollars on capital and operating costs for city services compared to an alternative scenario where homebuilding is concentrated in new suburban communities.
An honest debate about blanket rezoning ought to acknowledge the advantages this system has in promoting housing choice, housing affordability and the sustainability of municipal finances.
Clearly, many Calgarians felt blanket rezoning was undesirable when they voted for mayoral and council candidates who promised to change Calgary’s zoning rules. However, Calgarians also voted for a mayor who promised that more homes would be built faster, and at affordable prices—something that will be harder to achieve if city hall imposes tighter restrictions on where and what types of homes can be built. This unavoidable tension should be at the heart of the debate.
CFTG is promoting a comforting fairy tale where Calgary can tighten restrictions on homebuilding without limiting supply or driving up prices. In reality, no zoning regime delivers everything at once—greater neighbourhood control inevitably comes at the expense of housing choice and affordability. Calgarians—including the mayor and council—need a clear understanding of the trade-offs.
-
Alberta1 day agoThe Recall Trap: 21 Alberta MLA’s face recall petitions
-
illegal immigration1 day agoUS Notes 2.5 million illegals out and counting
-
International1 day agoTyler Robinson shows no remorse in first court appearance for Kirk assassination
-
Energy2 days agoCanada’s future prosperity runs through the northwest coast
-
Daily Caller24 hours ago‘There Will Be Very Serious Retaliation’: Two American Servicemen, Interpreter Killed In Syrian Attack
-
Business14 hours agoInflation Reduction Act, Green New Deal Causing America’s Energy Crisis
-
Automotive1 day agoPoliticians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles
-
Crime7 hours agoTerror in Australia: 12 killed after gunmen open fire on Hanukkah celebration




