The government of Alberta has tabled legislation that will give it sweeping powers over municipalities across the province, including the right to fire councillors and overturn bylaws.
Bill 20, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, includes two pieces of legislation: the Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA) and the Municipal Government Act (MGA).
If passed, the amendments to the Municipal Government Act will allow cabinet to remove a councillor “if in the public interest” or to order a referendum to decide whether a councillor should be removed, which will be reviewed in a case-by-case basis.
The amendment will also enable cabinet to require a municipal government to amend or repeal a bylaw, as well as giving cabinet the ability to postpone elections.
Right now, provincial cabinet can only intervene with municipal land-use bylaw or statutory plan. Only the municipal affairs minister can remove a sitting councillor under specific circumstances through a municipal inspection process.
The legislation also proposes allowing municipalities to require criminal record checks for candidates as part of their nomination package. Candidates can currently be disqualified for certain criminal convictions on their records, including corruption-related offences.
“Albertans expect fair and free elections, and through this legislation, we are ensuring that locally elected officials are accountable to the Albertans who elect them and make decisions that are clearly in Alberta’s interests and reflect the transparency and fairness that Albertans deserve,” Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver told reporters on Thursday.
Kyle Kasawski, Opposition municipal affairs critic, said municipal councils have a duty to represent the citizens who elect them.
“They know best how to run their own affairs. What municipalities need are appropriate funds so that they can fix the crumbling infrastructure in their communities and to pay for the programs that Albertans deserve,” Kasawski said in an emailed statement.
On Thursday, municipal politicians were quick to push back against the bill.
Edmonton Coun. Aaron Paquette wrote on social media, “Bend the knee or be fired?
“Is this democracy?”
Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek said that she is left with more questions than answers. While she welcomes criminal record checks for candidates, she raised concerns about other parts of the bill.
“This is a piece of legislation that requires a thoughtful and fulsome response. However, we have little to no details on things that will change the face of municipal governments,” she told reporters at a news conference Thursday.
“The provincial government claims that this is intended to ensure that local elections are transparent, fair and free.
“But I’m left asking why they’ve inserted themselves in municipal governments in a manner that actually strips the voting public’s right to elect the council that they believe is the best to serve?”
Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi said in a social media post a vast majority of residents don’t want political parties at the local level. He said the legislation would make city council decision-making more toxic and divisive.
“People know that local issues aren’t partisan issues,” he said.
Gondek added the provincial government is overstepping its authority with the legislation.
“If the people in provincial government are interested in doing the work of municipal government, maybe they should have run for these positions.”
However, McIver said the authority for cabinet to overturn planning decisions has been in place for years but has never been used.
“We often remind the federal and municipal governments to stay in their lane. And occasionally, perhaps, the provincial government needs to be reminded to stay in their lane, and this is one of those examples,” he said.
Alberta Municipalities president Tyler Gandam said the organization representing more than 260 municipalities will be looking for clarification on details of the bill, especially when it comes to allowing cabinet to overturn bylaws and dismiss elected councillors.
“Why? What are the parameters going to be for them to be able to do that?” he said, adding it’s unclear how political parties could improve city councils.
“It just feels like they’re not listening to Albertans.”
Political parties to be allowed in municipal elections
The proposed changes would also enable municipal political parties in the October 2025 municipal election, but only as a “pilot project” in Calgary and Edmonton.
Under the proposed legislation, candidates are not required to join a political party in order to run for local office.
Officials said municipal parties cannot be officially affiliated with provincial or federal parties, however, the legislation won’t prevent them from using names similar to existing political parties.
“Party affiliation at the local level is something that happens already, particularly in bigger cities,” McIver said.
“The amendments we are making will actually create the regulatory authority for the government to define local political parties, which will allow political parties to register with a municipality.
“If and when that happens, the municipality will be required to include a candidates political party on a local election ballot.”
But Kasawski said the municipal councils across Alberta have made it clear they do not want political parties in local elections.
“Citizens of municipalities elect local representatives to serve the best interests of their community, not because of what colour partisan flag they fly,” the municipal affairs critic said.
“Danielle Smith needs to realize that municipal councils are not a farm team for the UCP to carry out their wishes at the municipal level.”
Calgary Ward 13 Coun. Dan McLean told reporters on Thursday that the province is trying to formalize “what already exists,” saying many groups endorse slates of candidates during municipal elections.
However, he said he expects city councillors to remain independent within council chambers because they were elected to represent their constituents.
“I would always hope that councillors would remain independent and represent their ward, regardless whether they were endorsed by a party that leans more towards conservative values …. or more to the left,” McLean said.
Calgary Ward 8 Coun. Courtney Walcott questioned the province’s motives behind the legislation.
He told reporters the new legislation will dissuade independent candidates from running for local office because they will have to respond to a partisan and “divisive” political system.
Walcott also said the party system will create centralized ideologies and will limit the ways councillors are able to represent their constituents.
“Is this really just a matter of the province trying to institute some type of control over municipal elections, because they really can’t handle the fact that municipal councils tend to be independent and the end result is they don’t play the party line as much as they wish we would? Because it would make their life so much easier if other elected officials didn’t ask the questions,” he told reporters.
“I think the provincial government wants to be the central government, which is always ironic, of course, because there’s so many accusations of socialism and communism. Yet it’s only the province who seems to be trying to become sovereign from the federal government and then now trying to take control of local governments.”
Campaign financing expanded, tabulators banned
The legislation proposes several changes to campaign financing rules, including the reinstatement of union and corporate donations to individual candidates with a $5,000 maximum; previously prohibited during the last municipal election.
Donations will also be allowed outside of the local election year and will require candidates and elected officials to report them annually.
If the legislation passes, third-party advertisers would to report finances when campaigning on a plebiscite issue, after donations were only regulated during the third-party promotion or opposition of a candidate during an election.
Donations to third-party advertisers would also be limited to a maximum of $5,000 during election periods. Currently, those donations are capped at $30,000.
“This way, Albertans know exactly who is donating and there will be reasonable restrictions that ensure that fundraising does not get out of hand,” McIver said.
“Alberta elections belong to Albertans, so the updates will ensure that only Albertans, Alberta companies and Alberta-based union locals can contribute to issues-based third-party advertising. The proposed changes will make third-party advertisers for issue-based campaigns subject to the same contribution limits as donors to local election candidates.”
Bill 20 will also eliminate electronic tabulators and automated voting machines if passed. All ballots will have to be counted by hand.
The bill will also mandate recounts if they’re requested by a candidate when the margin is within half a per cent of the total votes cast.
Bill is an attempt to create a conservative council: political scientist
Duane Bratt, a political scientist with Mount Royal University in Calgary, said Bill 20 is an attempt to create conservative city councils in Calgary and Edmonton by the province.
“We’ve had periodic discussions about political parties but not very seriously and the provincial government seems to be gung-ho about this despite public opposition. They don’t appear to be interested in doing this across the board, only in the City of Calgary and Edmonton,” he said.
“(Premier Danielle Smith) has explicitly said that this is about getting rid of progressive mayors and progressive councils. This is a partisan move.”
Bratt also said the bill highlights historical tensions between municipal and provincial governments.
Municipal governments are in the domain of the provincial government and Bratt said Alberta can choose to repeal or amend bylaws and remove councillors if they deem it necessary.
Bratt said he wants more restrictions placed on political fundraising and remove the ability for unions and corporations to donate to political campaigns.
“We don’t often know who is donating to a third party. Third parties are not to coordinate with campaigns … I’d like to toughen those rules up significantly … But I think it’s an important step to remove corporate and union funding of municipal races, whether it’s direct donations or whether it is to third parties,” he said.
“I would also like to see changes to recall legislation … I think the threshold needs to be separate, depending on whether you’re a small town, or whether you’re a major city. I think that all needs to be done. I think we also need financing rules around municipal recall.”
— With files from Lisa Johnson, The Canadian Press
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
